René began his career as a Senior Analyst at Simat, Helliesen & Eichner in New York City, where he advised global airlines, airports, regional aviation operators, and business aviation clients. Today, he collaborates with airlines, business aviation operators, and airports worldwide, serving as an instructor for IATA and ACI in airline and airport management. He also holds an MBA from the John Molson School of Business in Montreal, Canada. 

The views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of AeroTime. 

Understanding the size, structure, and evolution of the UAE–UK business jet charter corridor requires proxies that are both empirically observable and economically meaningful. Direct visibility into charter demand, pricing, and utilization remains constrained by confidentiality and market fragmentation. In this context, scheduled airline first and business class seat capacity, including Etihad’s Apartment and Residence First Class products, provides a powerful analytical anchor.  

Premium airline travelers share core characteristics with business jet charter clients, including high willingness to pay, time sensitivity, and concentration in global financial centers. While not all premium passengers are charter candidates, premium airline capacity establishes a measurable upper bound on the addressable high-value travel market. 

Premium airline absorption vs. business aviation airport usage 

In absolute terms, premium seats from the UAE to the UK reached 611,851 in 2023, 675,346 in 2024, and 674,916 in 2025, implying 5.0% compound annual growth rate (CAGR) and confirming the UK as the most important European premium destination for UAE-origin travelers. This conclusion only becomes evident when the UK is assessed as an integrated airport system, encompassing not only London Heathrow (LHR) and Gatwick (LGW) but also Manchester (MAN), Stansted (STN), Birmingham (BHX), Glasgow (GLA), Newcastle (NCL), and Edinburgh (EDI).  

This distributed absorption pattern mirrors business aviation behavior, where demand is dispersed across multiple airports rather than concentrated solely at a single hub. For example, business aviation traffic favoring London Luton (LTN), Farnborough, Biggin Hill, Stansted, Manchester, Birmingham, and Edinburgh airports that align geographically and functionally with the same premium catchment areas served by airlines. This distributed absorption supports treating premium airline data as an external map of where high-value demand sits, even if business aviation uses different airports.  

Crucially, key UK business aviation airports such as London Luton, Farnborough, and Biggin Hill have no direct analogue in airline premium data because they are not scheduled hubs, yet they sit immediately adjacent to Heathrow’s premium demand basin. This reinforces the proxy logic: airline premium capacity identifies where high-value demand exists, while business aviation reallocates that demand toward airports optimized for flexibility, availability, and time efficiency. 

Similarly, regional premium airline absorption at Manchester, Birmingham, and Edinburgh also aligns closely with business aviation usage. These airports serve financial services, energy, government, and industrial demand – the same sectors that drive long-range charter activity to and from the UAE – confirming that premium airline data captures the economic geography of demand even if it does not reflect the operational choice of airport. 

From an analytical standpoint, regional premium absorption matters because it identifies where high-value demand exists beyond the primary hub, mirrors business aviation’s distributed operating pattern, and highlights structural charter demand that is less constrained by slot limitations at airports like Heathrow. In market sizing, it strengthens the proxy value of airline data by revealing the economic geography of premium travel demand, even when operational airport choices differ between scheduled airlines and business aviation. 

Heathrow as a structural anchor in the UAE-Europe premium corridor  

When analyzed consistently across all airports, the data shows that the United Kingdom absorbed between 24.8% and 26.8% of all UAE-to-Europe premium airline capacity from 2023 to 2025, averaging approximately 25.9% over the period. Within this concentrated UK share, Heathrow alone accounted for an average of 14.4% of all UAE-to-Europe premium seats, making it the single most important destination airport in the corridor, as illustrated by Chart A. 

Chart A: Premium Share reflects UK system-level absorption and Heathrow’s share of UAE–Europe premium seats, indexed to 2023=100. Directional read reflects normalization, not loss of structural importance. Data: OAG 

Moreover, Heathrow accounts for more than half of all UAE–UK premium capacity, capturing between 54.8% and 56.4% of premium seats over the three years. The persistence of this concentration reinforces that the UAE–UK corridor is structurally anchored rather than cyclical or opportunistic, positioning Heathrow as a core premium demand axis within the broader European network rather than a marginal market. 

For business jet analysis, this reinforces Heathrow’s role as a reliable proxy for high-value, time-sensitive travel behavior. This level of concentration at one of the world’s most slot-constrained airports is highly relevant to business aviation, as congestion, limited peak-hour availability, and schedule inflexibility create structural conditions that encourage substitution toward business jets, especially for time-critical and last-minute travel. 

Seasonality alignment between premium seats and business aviation 

Seasonality patterns further reinforce the proxy. While absolute volumes differ, the timing of demand is directionally consistent, supporting premium airline traffic as a behavioral proxy rather than a volume substitute. 

As illustrated by Chart B (DXB/AUH to LHR for 2025, with 2026 scheduled capacity shown for directional reference), airline premium capacity typically softens in February, accelerates through the spring, and strengthens toward year-end showing distinct premium airline capacity peaks. 

Chart B: First and Business Class seat capacity. DXB/AUH to LHR for 2025 with 2026 scheduled capacity shown for directional reference. Data: OAG 

Business jet activity may peak differently, particularly during the European summer, which is precisely why an overlay is required. This hypothesis should be validated using observed monthly business jet movements or flight hours for the same corridor to assess seasonal alignment. A close alignment across both segments would suggest they respond to the same underlying drivers, including executive travel cycles, family mobility during school holidays, and the seasonal concentration of corporate, sporting, and leisure events. 

What the proxy does and does not represent 

It is important to clarify the role of premium airline capacity within this framework. It is not a forecast of business jet demand, nor does it imply a direct conversion between airline passengers and charter flights; rather, it serves as a constraint and plausibility anchor. If implied charter utilization or revenue growth diverges materially from premium airline trends without a clear structural explanation, that divergence warrants scrutiny.  

For this reason, the proxy is intended to constrain corridor-level market size, not to explain individual charter booking behavior. While premium airline traffic does not capture ultra-high-net-worth privacy preferences, point-to-point flexibility, or last-minute charter behavior, it provides a statistically robust signal of where premium demand concentrates, how it evolves, and how it scales over time. 

Conclusion 

First and business class seat capacity serves as a supply-side signal of where airlines allocate premium inventory and when persistent over time, reflects where premium demand is structurally anchored. As such, it provides a strong and defensible proxy for analyzing the UAE–UK business jet corridor, capturing the same high-value travel ecosystem, reflecting real-world congestion and substitution dynamics, and aligning geographically with charter fleet basing and demand. 

The data used in this analysis confirms the UK’s structural importance within Europe, highlights Heathrow as a critical pressure point, and provides a transparent, independently verifiable anchor for triangulating business aviation market size. While premium airline seat capacity can be influenced by airline network decisions and does not directly measure realized demand or yields, its value lies in assessing concentration and seasonality patterns.  

When used in this way and triangulated with charter flight activity alongside rate-based, cost-plus, and movements-based models, premium airline seat capacity enhances analytical rigor while reducing the risk of over- or underestimating true business jet charter market potential. 

The views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of AeroTime.   

The Russian war against Ukraine has become the first large-scale conflict in which unmanned aerial systems (UAS) are not merely a supporting capability, but a central instrument of strategic coercion.

What began as an improvised adaptation has matured into a systematic campaign in which long-range strike drones, loitering munitions, and reconnaissance platforms are used to degrade critical infrastructure, exhaust air defenses, and impose cumulative economic and psychological costs on a civilian population.

The effects of this campaign extend far beyond Ukraine. For Europe, the war offers an unambiguous warning: modern societies remain acutely vulnerable to sustained drone-enabled pressure on energy, transport, and industrial systems, and existing defense concepts are poorly calibrated to this threat.

Drones as a strategic infrastructure weapon

Russia’s use of drones against Ukrainian infrastructure is best understood not as terror alone, but as a deliberate strategy of systemic attrition. Shahed/Geran-type drones, decoys, and modified strike platforms are employed in large numbers to target power generation, transmission nodes, heating plants, and industrial facilities. The objective is not necessarily permanent destruction. Instead, the goal is to force repeated shutdowns, disrupt repair cycles, stretch defensive resources to the point where resilience erodes over time, and weaken resolve throughout Ukrainian society.

This logic has been especially visible in attacks on Ukraine’s energy and heating systems. Combined heat and power plants, thermal electricity stations, and electricity distribution networks have been struck repeatedly, often just as repairs are completed. Even when physical damage is limited, the loss of electricity can prevent facilities from restarting, creating cascading failures across interconnected systems. The result is a fragile equilibrium in which services function at reduced capacity only when attacks temporarily pause. At the time of writing, roughly 70% of Kyiv homes are without electricity at any given time, and heating and hot water are also seldom available. At -15-degree temperatures, the author has not had heating for over a week.

For Russia, drones are ideally suited to this mission. They are relatively cheap, can be produced at scale, and can be launched in mixed waves designed to overwhelm air defense. Their effectiveness does not depend on precision alone, but on persistence. Each successful penetration compounds the strain on infrastructure, maintenance crews, and the civilian population. This has negative effects for the country’s industrial output, especially for the military-industrial complex that supplies the Armed Forces of Ukraine. In the end, Russia has found a relatively inexpensive strategy to harm military output, operations, and civilian resilience.

The economics of exhaustion

One of the most critical lessons for Europe lies in the economics of this approach. Ukraine and its partners (such as NATO in Poland in September 2025) routinely intercept drones using surface-to-air missiles that cost orders of magnitude more than the incoming threat. Even when interception rates are high, the defender pays a disproportionate price. Over time, this imbalance creates a strategic dilemma: protect everything at unsustainable cost or accept selective degradation of infrastructure and even loss of life.

This dynamic has profound implications for European defense planning. Most European air defense architectures are optimized for aircraft and ballistic missiles, not for mass, low-cost, and unmanned threats. The Ukrainian experience demonstrates that drone campaigns do not need to be decisive in a military sense to be strategically effective. They function instead as a long-term pressure tool that exploits the defender’s economic and political constraints.

In peacetime Europe, similar attacks would likely trigger immediate political crises. Power outages, heating disruptions, or industrial shutdowns would cascade into public outrage, market instability, and pressure on governments to de-escalate or compromise. The Ukrainian case shows that resilience is not merely technical but also societal and political.

Over the past 12 months, Russia has, by a magnitude of some 200-500%, increased the cadence and amounts of drones that it is throwing at Ukraine. While back in summer 2024, four to six drones would attack Kyiv at night; the number now is easily over 100. Civilian deaths have notably increased, but the effects on critical infrastructure have been devastating, with Ukraine experiencing the worst losses of power and heating since the beginning of Russia’s full-scale invasion in 2022.

Critical infrastructure as the new frontline

Ukraine’s war has also exposed how deeply modern warfare has blurred the boundary between the battlefield and civilian life. Energy systems, water supply, telecommunications, and transport infrastructure are no longer rear-area assets. Today, they are primary targets, with Russia attack Ukraine’s power and heating plans in December 2025 and January 2026 almost weekly.

European states face comparable vulnerabilities. Like Ukraine’s energy grid, European energy grids are centralized, digitally managed, and often poorly protected against physical attacks. Many rely on a small number of critical nodes whose disruption would have nationwide effects. The transition to renewable energy, while strategically necessary, has introduced additional exposure through dispersed but lightly protected assets such as substations, wind farms, and grid interconnectors.

Moreover, Europe’s infrastructure is designed for efficiency, not redundancy under attack. The Ukrainian experience demonstrates that distributed generation and decentralized systems are far more resilient to drone campaigns than large, centralized facilities – a lesson Ukrainians are experiencing now. Yet most European energy systems still depend heavily on precisely the kind of infrastructure Russia has learned to exploit.

Decentralized, numerous nodes of power and heat supply have proven more difficult and more costly for the aggressor to destroy. While this is not always possible or feasible, energy infrastructure can be designed – and even overhauled – to be less vulnerable to attack, or at the very least to be only one of many nodes in a much larger system that does not collapse when one is destroyed.

Adaptation and the arms race in the air

Another key risk lies in the speed of adaptation. Russia has demonstrated an ability to iterate quickly, modifying drones to counter electronic warfare, adjusting flight profiles, and integrating new guidance and navigation methods. The campaign against Ukraine’s infrastructure is not static, but rather a learning process.

Europe should assume that adversaries will apply these lessons directly, while China and others are watching. Drone swarms, decoys, and mixed attack profiles will be used to probe defenses, identify weak points, and refine tactics. The barrier to entry is also low. State and even non-state actors alike can (and currently are) acquire or manufacture systems capable of disrupting critical infrastructure with limited resources.

The Ukrainian case also highlights the limits of purely defensive adaptation. While air defense remains essential, it cannot be the sole answer. This is demonstrated in Ukraine. While the country has battle-effective air defense capabilities, large, combined attacks mean that the system can be overwhelmed, and destruction occurs. Military planners therefore need to go beyond traditional combat measures. Hardening infrastructure, dispersing and decentralizing generation, diversifying energy infrastructure, and building rapid-repair capacity are equally important. Yet these measures require time, investment, and political will, all of which are often lacking in peacetime Europe, nearly four years into Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

Psychological and political effects

Beyond physical damage, drone campaigns exert a powerful psychological effect. The constant threat of attack, the unpredictability of outages, and the visible struggle to maintain basic services erode public confidence. In Ukraine, this pressure is mitigated by wartime solidarity and a clear understanding of the stakes. But even in Ukraine, after weeks of energy and heating deficiencies, societal cohesion does wear down. In Europe, similar conditions would be far more destabilizing.

Russian drone operations should therefore be seen as a form of political warfare. They test not only infrastructure, but governance. How quickly can authorities respond? How transparently can they communicate? How much disruption will societies tolerate before demanding political change?

For European adversaries, this is an attractive avenue of coercion. It offers plausible deniability, scalable escalation, and a means to exploit internal divisions without crossing traditional thresholds of war.

Implications for European defense

The central risk for Europe is complacency. Ukraine’s experience is often framed as unique, shaped by geography and the intensity of the conflict. This is a dangerous illusion. The underlying vulnerabilities are structural and widely shared.

European defense planning must therefore integrate several hard lessons:

• First, air defense must be rebalanced. High-end interceptors are necessary but insufficient. Europe requires layered systems capable of countering mass, low-cost drones economically, including guns, drone interceptors, short-range missiles, electronic warfare, and directed-energy systems.
• Second, critical infrastructure protection must become a core defense mission. This includes physical hardening, redundancy, and the ability to operate under degraded conditions. Energy, water, and transport systems must be designed with conflict in mind, not just efficiency. Critical infrastructure sites should also be equipped with electronic warfare and other security systems.
• Third, resilience must be institutionalized. Rapid repair, spare parts, stockpiles, trained crews, and clear command structures are as important as interception. Ukraine’s ability to restore partial functionality after repeated attacks has prevented collapse, but at enormous cost. Europe should not wait to learn these lessons under fire.
• Finally, strategic communication and civil preparedness are essential. Societies must understand that disruption does not equal defeat. Without public resilience, even limited attacks can achieve disproportionate political effects.

Conclusion

Russian drone operations against Ukrainian critical infrastructure represent a fundamental shift in how modern warfare targets societies. They demonstrate that strategic effects can be achieved not through decisive blows, but through sustained, adaptive pressure on the systems that underpin everyday life.

For Europe, the warning should be clear. The continent’s infrastructure, defense posture, and political systems are not prepared for this form of warfare. Addressing this gap requires more than technical fixes. It demands a rethinking of defense, resilience, and the relationship between civilian infrastructure and national security.

Ukraine is facing this lesson in real time. Europe still has the opportunity to learn it in advance.

René began his career as a Senior Analyst at Simat, Helliesen & Eichner in New York City, where he advised global airlines, airports, regional aviation operators, and business aviation clients. Today, he collaborates with airlines, business aviation operators, and airports worldwide, serving as an instructor for IATA and ACI in airline and airport management. He also holds an MBA from the John Molson School of Business in Montreal, Canada. 

This is a co-authored article in collaboration with Andreas Velmachos, Senior Engineer and Managing Partner at an engineering firm supporting lessors, ACMI operators and airlines. 

The views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of AeroTime. 

Engine transitions have become a critical value inflection point in commercial aviation. As ownership consolidates with lessors and aircraft move more frequently between operators, jurisdictions, and maintenance regimes, engines now concentrate disproportionate technical, financial, and operational risk. Valuation data shows that engines can represent over half of a narrowbody’s total aircraft value, meaning even minor gaps in records or work scope can trigger significant cost overruns, downtime, and asset devaluation. 

Traditional, reactive approaches to engine transitions are no longer sufficient. What is required is an engineering-led Continuing Airworthiness Management Organisation (CAMO) consultancy model that governs engine condition, records, and work scope across the full lifecycle, not just at shop induction or redelivery. Embedded technical oversight shifts engine transitions from reactive problem-solving to a proactive risk management model. 

When executed well, this approach delivers what matters most: tighter cost control through scope discipline, improved availability via shorter turn times and fewer surprises, and asset value protection through verified compliance and traceability. In today’s high-churn leasing environment, engineering-led engine transition management is no longer optional; it is fundamental to sustainable portfolio and financial performance. 

Engine transitions: a strategic perspective

Whether triggered by lease expiry, operator change, repossession, or fleet restructuring, an engine transition compresses technical, regulatory, and commercial risk into a short window. Engines were once managed as long-term assets in stable operating environments, but that assumption no longer holds. Today, engines move more frequently across operators, jurisdictions, and MROs, increasing uncertainty around configuration, life-limited parts (LLP) traceability, compliance status, and remaining life at each transition. 

Most engine transition failures are not caused by major technical defects, but by governance gaps: inaccurate status assumptions, incomplete back-to-birth records, misaligned shop work scopes, uncontrolled piece-part exposure, delayed approvals, and weak acceptance documentation. These issues drive cost overruns, and delays are the result of insufficient engineering oversight. As a result, CAMO consultancy and independent technical advisory support have become essential to control cost, protect availability, and preserve asset value. 

In this environment, CAMO consultancy adds value by governing the technical and compliance framework around the engine. Independent engineering oversight establishes a verified baseline through LLP audits, Airworthiness Directives (ADs) and Service Bulletins (SBs) compliance checks, configuration validation, and review of historical shop-visit data. This replaces assumptions with facts and enables informed decisions before shop induction, when costs and risk escalate most rapidly. 

Not all engine transitions require a full technical reset; many simply need a scope precisely aligned with lease return conditions and next-operator requirements. In addition, piece-part exposure is the largest source of cost volatility during engine shop visits. These findings emerge late, are hard to forecast, and involve high-value components where repair or replacement decisions can add hundreds of thousands of dollars. Without disciplined engineering governance, this exposure drives uncontrolled overruns, extended downtime, and weakened asset returns. CAMO consultancy ensures mandatory work is clearly separated from optional or discretionary tasks, preventing scope creep and misaligned capital spend. Moreover, a structured technical consultancy approach can introduce repair-versus-replace logic, exposure thresholds, and escalation rules that convert open-ended shop visits into controlled decision processes. 

Turnaround time is often attributed to MRO performance, but in practice it is more frequently driven by delayed approvals, unclear decision authority, and incomplete documentation. Engineering-led oversight enforces disciplined decision cycles, critical-path control, and early material positioning, consistently reducing avoidable delays. At the back end, CAMO consultancy strengthens acceptance and redelivery through verified traceability, clear engine status statements, and documented deviations directly supporting the three value pillars of cost efficiency, availability, and accelerated remarketing with preserved asset liquidity, as illustrated in Chart 1. 

Business case: Converting engine transition risk into predictable asset returns

A mid-life narrowbody approaching lease expiry presented a familiar but high-risk scenario for the asset owner. Redelivery was scheduled within nine months, with a follow-on lease conditionally agreed. While the airframe appeared compliant, early review showed the engines carried material uncertainty. 

Although operator-provided data indicated compliance with return conditions, an independent engineering-led CAMO review uncovered latent risks: incomplete LLP back-to-birth trace, inconsistent SB records, and ambiguity around prior shop-visit scope. Left unresolved, these gaps would likely have surfaced late in the transition, when timelines are compressed, and leverage is limited. 

The lessor implemented early technical governance. A verified engine baseline was established through trace audits, configuration validation, and reconciliation of historical shop data. The work scope was then aligned strictly with lease return and next-lessee requirements, avoiding unnecessary LLP replacement and discretionary SBs. During the shop visit, predefined repair-versus-replace logic and exposure thresholds-controlled scope growth, keeping the final invoice within a narrow variance band. 

The outcome was tangible: US$280,000 in avoided engine spend, a 10-day reduction in transition downtime preserving lease-on revenue, and engines delivered with clean documentation and clear acceptance status. The result combined cost efficiency, improved availability, and protected asset value through disciplined, engineering-led transition management. 

Conclusion 

Engine transitions sit at the crossroads of engineering, finance, and operations. In a market defined by high asset mobility, regulatory complexity, and cost pressure, unmanaged transitions expose airlines and lessors to outsized risk. The evidence is clear: most transition failures are not technical inevitabilities, but governance failures. 

An engineering-led CAMO consultancy and technical advisory model provides the structure, discipline, and foresight needed to control this risk. As leasing, ACMI, and asset-backed investment continue to scale, this approach is no longer optional. It has become the foundation of asset protection, operational resilience, and long-term financial performance, especially given that engines are the single most valuable component of a narrowbody aircraft and the largest cost driver over its lifecycle. 

Renato spent 15 years as Senior Cabin Crew in the Middle East and has a lifelong passion for aviation history. He has also led the largest research project on Alberto Santos-Dumont and was condecorated by the Brazilian Air Force for efforts in aviation preservation.    

Renato is now working to shape the future of private aviation, connecting today’s innovators with tomorrow’s history.   

The views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of AeroTime. 

Today, the great gatherings of aviation and aerospace such as Farnborough in England, Le Bourget in France, Dubai, Singapore and Oshkosh in the United States, are stages where the latest aircraft, engines and technologies are unveiled to the world. These fairs feel inseparable from the roar of runways and the spectacle of flying displays. Yet the birthplace of this tradition was not an airport at all. The roots of every air show and aerospace exhibition lie beneath the monumental glass vaults of Paris’s Grand Palais, a building raised for art and industry at the dawn of the 20^th century and still standing as a silent witness to the birth of global aeronautics. 

At the beginning of that century, the dream of leaving the ground had already leapt from fantasy into reality. Balloons had carried explorers aloft for more than a hundred years, dirigibles were beginning to stretch their range, and heavier-than-air machines had finally proven themselves capable of sustained, controlled flight. What was missing was a stage to display these marvels, a place where inventors, pilots, industrialists and the curious public could gather under one roof. Paris offered the stage, and the Grand Palais became the theater. 

The first aeronautical exhibition of 1908 

The building itself had been created for the Exposition Universelle of 1900. Just a few years later, it was nearly condemned to demolition; its vast iron skeleton and glass roof dismissed as an extravagant relic of the past. But instead of vanishing, it was given a new purpose. In December 1908, the Grand Palais hosted the very first aeronautical exhibition in history. What had once been built to honor the arts and industry of the 19^th century suddenly became the cathedral of the 20th, the house of flight. 

The idea came from Robert Esnault-Pelterie, the brilliant inventor of the joystick and one of the earliest monoplane designers, together with André Granet, architect and nephew of Gustave Eiffel. They had recently founded the Association des Industriels de l’Aéronautique and were determined to give French aviation a stage worthy of its achievements. Their opportunity came when the Grand Palais hosted the Paris Automobile Salon. In one corner, alongside cars, they installed a new wonder: flying machines. 

Pioneers under glass 

Visitors who entered the palace in December 1908 were greeted by Clément Ader’s Avion, defiantly placed opposite the entrance as a reminder of France’s early claim to controlled flight. Just beyond stood Henri Farman’s Voisin biplane, fresh from its kilometer record the previous winter. Louis Blériot presented three machines, the Blériot VIII, IX and X, while Esnault-Pelterie showed his elegant steel-tube monoplane and its engine. Astra displayed the Wright brothers’ biplane, proof that the Americans too had mastered the air. The Breguet brothers unveiled their experimental gyroplane, a forerunner of the helicopter. And among these giants of wood and canvas appeared the Demoiselle, designed by Alberto Santos-Dumont but exhibited by the industrialist Clément-Bayard, who had begun to manufacture and promote it. It was a tiny dragonfly of an aircraft, hinting at the possibility of a personal flight. Suspended nearby were models and gondolas of dirigibles from Astra, Zodiac and Clément-Bayard, reminders that lighter-than-air craft still held pride in place. 

The section that most astonished visitors, however, was the gallery of engines. For the first time, the public could touch the beating hearts of flight: the Antoinette V8 and V16, finely engineered; the Anzani radial, soon to carry Blériot across the English Channel; Renault’s novel air-cooled engines; and the revolutionary Gnome rotary, the first lightweight engine to run reliably. Here, perhaps more than in the display of fragile aircraft, the transformation of aviation from curiosity into industry could be felt. 

Those present in 1908 formed a pantheon: Clément Ader, Alberto Santos-Dumont, Henri Farman, Louis Blériot, Robert Esnault-Pelterie, Gabriel Voisin, Louis and Jacques Breguet, Léon Levavasseur, Maurice Mallet, Maurice Clément-Bayard and André Granet. With them, and under the Grand Palais’s great dome, aviation became not just an invention but a movement, a community, and a market. 

The experiment quickly became a tradition. In 1909, the Grand Palais hosted the first international exhibition devoted exclusively to aviation. More than 380 exhibitors filled its glass halls, and 100,000 visitors streamed through the doors. Blériot’s Type XI, which had crossed the Channel only weeks before, was the centerpiece. Farman’s biplane stood beside it, fresh from its world endurance record, and the Wright biplane of the Comte de Lambert would soon after circle the Eiffel Tower. For the first time, sections were dedicated to meteorology, physiology of flight and aerial photography, signs that aviation was already reaching beyond sport into science and society. 

Innovation and aviation fever 

The years that followed were a whirlwind. In 1910, the crowd marveled at Henri Coandă’s experimental jet biplane and Henri Fabre’s hydro-aeroplane, the first seaplane. By 1911, aircraft were being shown armed, and Blériot presented a “Berline” designed for passenger transport across the Channel. Even Louis Vuitton, together with his brother, presented their own flying designs, proof that the fascination with flight extended far beyond engineers and pilots to touch fashion houses and industrial dynasties alike. In those years, aviation fever gripped Paris so completely that everyone with imagination, resources or ambition sought to be part of it. 

In 1912, war’s shadow grew long. Planes fitted with machine guns and bomb racks were openly displayed, and competitions tested bombing accuracy. In 1913, on the eve of the Great War, the Grand Palais was filled with 34 aircraft and nearly a hundred engines. The optimism of 1908 had turned into preparation for conflict. 

Postwar rebirth and commercial promise 

When the salons resumed in 1919, the world changed. The palace now displayed bombers reimagined as airliners, the Farman Goliath, Blériot Mammouth and Caudron C-23. More than 270,000 visitors came, drawn by the promise of commercial air travel. By 1921, the exhibition was officially called the Salon de l’Aéronautique, and the future was on display in René Tampier’s folding-wing car-plane and the Pescara helicopter with contra-rotating blades. Dioramas mapped out planned air routes across Europe, the Middle East and Africa, reflecting France’s ambition to dominate global skies. In 1922 and 1923, more than 250,000 visitors admired 42 aircraft and the mighty Napier CUB engine, a 1,000-horsepower marvel that symbolized the new scale of aviation. 

From that modest corner display in 1908 to the massive postwar shows of the 1920s, the Grand Palais had become more than an exhibition hall. It was the nest where modern aviation hatched. Beneath its glass vaults, fragile wood-and-fabric contraptions gave way to metal monoplanes; sport became industry, industry became strategy, and strategy turned into commerce. The Grand Palais was not simply saved from demolition by an exhibition. It became the birthplace of global aeronautics, the nest of evolution that would guide the world for the next centuries. 

René began his career as a Senior Analyst at Simat, Helliesen & Eichner in New York City, where he advised global airlines, airports, regional aviation operators, and business aviation clients. Today, he collaborates with airlines, business aviation operators, and airports worldwide, serving as an instructor for IATA and ACI in airline and airport management. He also holds an MBA from the John Molson School of Business in Montreal, Canada.

The views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of AeroTime. 

The Falcon 900 and Challenger 600 platforms, with four decades in service, have maintained relevance through successive updates. Each has undergone multiple refreshes: the Falcon 900LX was announced at EBACE in 2008 and last updated in 2016, while the Challenger 650 debuted at NBAA in 2014 with NetJets as launch customer.

Today, both aircraft are at a competitive disadvantage in the 4,000–5,300 nm large-cabin segment, particularly after the arrival of Gulfstream’s G500 and G400. The G400 has created new space above the traditional super-midsize class with significantly greater cabin volume, while the G500 extends further into true large-cabin territory beyond the Falcon 900LX.

Chart A illustrates the Productivity Index (PI), defined as (long-range cruise speed × range × cabin volume) ÷ 1e9. The G500 leads decisively, with a 42–56% PI advantage over both Bombardier and Dassault offerings. The G400 follows with a PI of 2.95. The Falcon 900LX ranks third with a PI of 2.58, offering a strong niche tri-jet value. With a score of 1.94, the CL650 sits at the bottom as the most economical entry option, while the Falcon 2000LXS provides a moderate level of productivity.

Furthermore, Chart B presents a composite competitiveness score using min-max normalization across all five models. This score places greater weight on PI and range while still accounting for cabin volume and speed.

Positioning of CL650 & F900LX in Segment

Charts A and B highlight the G500 and G400 as clear segment leaders, followed by the Falcon 900LX, Challenger 650, and finally the Falcon 2000LXS.

The CL650 offers attractive cabin volume relative to price but ranks second to last overall due to weaker PI and long-range performance compared to the Gulfstreams and the F900LX. The F900LX performs mid-pack and is stronger than the CL650 in both analyses yet still trails the G500/G400 portfolio, despite offering solid 4,750-nm range and good cabin volume. Its main shortfalls lie in PI, speed, and other key metrics.

Excluding the F2000LXS, both the F900LX and CL650 now face a strategic crossroads in this segment. What actions should each OEM take to regain competitiveness?

Option A: Clean-Sheet Design. This is the highest-capex approach, justified only when capabilities cannot be achieved through derivatives or refreshes. At this stage, it is highly unlikely for either OEM. Dassault is fully engaged with the Falcon 6X ramp-up and 10X development, while Bombardier benefits from a fully amortized CL650, favoring incremental upgrades (interior, avionics, cabin tech) that deliver high margins with minimal capital risk and support profit stability.

Option B: Derivative Product. A mid-capex strategy, derivatives offer faster, lower-cost benefits compared to clean-sheet designs. Dassault, with its modern Falcon 6X platform, could pursue a viable “short 6X” derivative to quickly close the capability gap identified in this segment and achieve parity with Gulfstream without a full clean-sheet. Bombardier, however, lacks a similar path. The Challenger 650’s architecture does not support a shortened derivative without major structural redesign—effectively approaching clean-sheet complexity, risk, and cost.

Option C: Product Refresh. A staged modernization offers strong ROI and maintains competitiveness at significantly lower capex than a new or derivative program. For Dassault (likely constrained by Falcon 6X and 10X investments), a targeted F900LX refresh could deliver faster time-to-market. Likewise, Bombardier can extend the CL650’s viability through continued upgrades in interior, avionics, and aerodynamic or engine tuning. Both OEMs should move quickly with refresh programs to regain ground in this critical segment.

Refresh Path for CL650 & F900LX

Several assumptions were modeled to assess how each OEM could enhance PI and key performance metrics. For the Falcon 900LX, scenarios included an interior redesign using lightweight materials, a 4–5% boost in speed and range, and no cabin volume increase due to cost constraints. Result: the updated “F900LX NG” would achieve a 10.3% PI increase to 2.84 (see Chart C).

To stay competitive, a pricing premium of no more than 2.5% over the current F900LX list price is advised. To sustain this, Dassault should optimize refresh aircraft volume to achieve cost efficiency, offer tiered modular packages (for example, performance, interior, or combined), minimize downtime (target ≤8 weeks) to drive customer adoption, and link pricing to measurable lifecycle value rather than aesthetic enhancements alone.

The CL650 faces competitive pressure, as shown in Charts A and B, but retains key advantages: lowest acquisition cost and strong charter and fractional market presence. Strategically, Bombardier could prioritize value enhancement over performance leadership. However, one of its most visible weaknesses is speed, in addition to range and cabin volume. Assuming a 9–10% improvement in speed and range through aerodynamic and engine tuning, the upgraded “CL680” could boost PI by 21%, reaching 2.35 (Chart C). A price premium of 5–7% over the current CL650 list price is recommended to maintain competitiveness.

If implemented, these strategies could lift the CL650 from its current second-lowest PI ranking into a more competitive mid-tier position. Additionally, both the F900LX NG and CL680 would significantly close the PI gap with the G400, reducing the current 13–34% deficit to roughly 4–20%.

Conclusion

The analysis indicates that Dassault can solidify its position as a stronger mid-tier competitor, offering lower capex solutions than Bombardier and emerging as the most credible challenger to the G400. Refreshing the F900LX presents a viable path forward, while a “short 6X” derivative could be considered if additional investment becomes available, eliminating the need for a clean-sheet design in this segment.

If Dassault opts for a low-capex strategy, a phased refresh (interior, avionics, aerodynamic, and engine upgrades) should move forward. This would keep the F900LX relevant and support its positioning as an “F900LX NG” with modest investment.

Bombardier should focus on a refresh to control capex, targeting improvements in cabin comfort (not volume), speed, and range. However, even with a refresh, Bombardier’s required investment will likely exceed Dassault’s due to greater competitive pressure. Moreover, to compete with top-tier peers, a refresh alone may not suffice. Matching or surpassing the G400’s cabin volume and PI would require extensive structural changes, new wing, engines, and aerodynamics—or a full clean-sheet design.

The views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of AeroTime. 

At one point, the relationship between airlines and travel sellers was strong and mutually beneficial. Both sides clearly understood that they depended on each other.  

In my view, this balance began to shift in the early 2000s when airlines started scrutinizing their distribution costs. The first major change was the removal of agency commissions, which was followed by full-content agreements and eventually the introduction of NDC (New Distribution Capability) by the International Air Transport Association (IATA) in 2012. Since then, the relationship seems to have deteriorated even further, with NDC accelerating a downward spiral. 

That said, I don’t believe NDC alone is to blame. The post-COVID landscape, combined with an influx of new people in the industry who may not fully appreciate these interdependencies, has contributed to the growing disconnect. On top of that is the perceived “threat” of Artificial Intelligence (AI). In my opinion, this risk is overstated. Few industries rely as much on a human touch as travel. While AI will undoubtedly reshape certain aspects of the business by automating routine tasks and improving efficiency, the human element in travel advising and selling remains as vital as ever. 

Several factors lie at the root of this problem. One is the incentives paid to agents by the GDS (Global Distribution Systems), which have long been a point of contention for airlines. Another is the industry’s reliance on PNR-centric systems. Both airlines and sellers have built their entire infrastructure around this format, which has been in place since the 1960s. 

GDS vs. NDC 

What often gets overlooked is the fundamental difference between a Global Distribution System (GDS) and a New Distribution Capability (NDC). A GDS is a platform that aggregates and distributes content from all the airlines it has contracted. NDC, by contrast, only provides the content that individual airlines choose to contract and distribute. The same is true for an airline’s hosting system (the passenger service system, or PSS), which makes available only the content it has agreed to sell. 

The barriers separating these systems are not technical but commercial. At its core, the trade-off is clear: a GDS is more expensive, but it also delivers greater global reach. 

But do the barriers benefit the end customer? In practice, the answer is no. Picture a traveler stranded at the airport and trying to rebook after a disruption. The last thing they want to hear is the airline telling them to “call your agent” or, worse, suggesting they should “book direct next time.” That experience does nothing to serve the customer and only deepens frustration. 

Trust issues 

This article is not intended to be purely about technology, it is about relationships, and how we can work to improve them. Yet fears around change remain significant. 

As airlines remove content from the GDS and shift it into NDC channels, agents are left searching for solutions. To me, it feels unusual to remove content entirely when pricing differentiation by channel could achieve a similar effect. Still, the airline is the owner of its content, not the seller. The result of this fragmentation, however, is clear: agency consolidation. Larger players with deeper pockets tend to survive, while smaller agencies struggle to keep pace. 

This raises difficult questions. Which technology aggregator should I choose? Should I partner with a consolidator instead? How can I manage increasingly fragmented content? Will I need to upgrade my accounting and selling systems? Ultimately, NDC seems to be accelerating the consolidation of agencies while driving the growth of consolidators. However, these are just another layer of intermediaries, each looking to take their own share of the pie. 

Another concern that sellers have about airlines can end up directly hurting the traveler. I often hear sellers say, “We enter our own email and phone number, so the airline doesn’t steal our customer.” I recently experienced this myself when an airline I was working with used a travel agency that created an “Ann Cederhall email” with their own address. This drove me crazy, as I needed my real email to access the booking in the airline’s app. 

And why is access to the app so important? Because that is where travelers receive critical updates about check-in, gate changes, departure delays, or rebookings. Forcing all this information to flow through a travel agent is not just inconvenient, it creates needless inefficiency for the traveler. 

Another outdated relic is the ADM (agency debit memos) that airlines issue for incorrect ticketing or perceived misbehavior. One of the stated goals of the NDC was to reduce the number of ADMs, yet this has not materialized. In fact, I often hear that agents struggle not only with the volume of ADMs but also with the complexity of contesting them and finding adequate support. Perhaps this is an area where specialist companies could step in to manage the process more effectively.  

The value of the seller 

What concerns me further is the attitude many airlines still seem to hold toward sellers. There is often a lack of understanding of what a seller truly provides. At its core, the value of a seller lies in expertise and in acting as a trusted advisor, a kind of concierge for the traveler. Airlines frequently overlook the duty of care sellers provide, as well as the vital relationship they build between the end customer and the advisor. 

The real question is this, how do we rebuild trust and refocus on the one stakeholder who truly matters – the customer? Every player in this ecosystem has a role, and all of us are needed. Which brings me back to the increasing mistrust.  

How can we overcome the fears that agents hold? One thing is certain: replacing customer contact details with agency emails should have no place in the reservation process. Perhaps it should even be mandatory for any system to capture the traveler’s actual contact details. I think this would be of security interest as well.  

So, is education the solution? A key challenge lies in the lack of understanding of each other’s business models and costs. How can we bring greater transparency and visibility to this? After all, when a customer chooses to book through both sellers and airlines, collaboration is essential.  

Who owns the customer?  

This leads us back to the familiar debate: “Who owns the customer?” In my view, the answer is simple: I own myself. If I travel on behalf of my employer, then both the company and I share that ownership. But one thing is absolutely clear: neither the airline nor the seller owns me.  

My hope is that initiatives like UK-based identity service OneID will lead to real progress, enabling a portable digital profile where travelers themselves choose what information to share and with whom. 

Another possible solution could be to have all tickets issued directly by the airline. In such a model, the airline would take on a larger operational role, leaving sellers to focus on what they do best: advising customers and selling content.  

René began his career as a Senior Analyst at Simat, Helliesen & Eichner in New York City, where he advised global airlines, airports, regional aviation operators, and business aviation clients. Today, he collaborates with airlines, business aviation operators, and airports worldwide, serving as an instructor for IATA and ACI in airline and airport management. He also holds an MBA from the John Molson School of Business in Montreal, Canada.

The views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of AeroTime. 

The recent Chapter 11 filing by Azul Airlines in May 2025 marks a significant turning point for the Brazilian carrier, underscoring both the fragility and complexity of operating in Latin America’s turbulent aviation landscape. 

Hardly unprecedented in a region known for economic volatility and currency shocks, Azul’s bankruptcy filing was widely expected. Just months earlier, the airline had closed a Superpriority Notes offering aimed at refinancing existing obligations and enhancing liquidity. It had also renegotiated terms with key stakeholders, including bondholders, aircraft lessors, and Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs). In the event, though, these measures proved insufficient to stave off a financial reckoning. 

A region of contrasts 

Azul’s decision to seek Chapter 11 protection places it on a path well known by its regional peers – albeit perhaps too late. During the pandemic, carriers such as LATAM Airlines, Avianca and Aeromexico proactively filed for bankruptcy in the United States. Their early restructuring allowed them to reduce debt burdens, streamline fleets and recalibrate network strategies. Brazil’s two leading airlines, Azul and Gol, opted to defer similar action. Inevitably, that decision has had consequences. 

Gol eventually filed for Chapter 11 in January 2024 and emerged from bankruptcy in June 2025 with a healthier balance sheet and more flexible capital and cost structure. In contrast, Azul entered 2025 with mounting debt, an imbalanced revenue-cost structure and deteriorating liquidity, ultimately prompting its late-stage filing. The airline’s timing meant it entered the process amid a more challenging credit environment, with less patience amongst its investors and fewer tools at its disposal. 

Foreign currency risk and financial stress 

Azul’s financial strain was exacerbated by Brazil’s macroeconomic instability. At the end of 2024, approximately 46% of the airline’s operating expenses, including lease payments, aircraft debt service, and working capital, were denominated in foreign currencies. Meanwhile, 82% of its revenue was derived from domestic passengers paying in Brazilian reals. When the real depreciated by 27% against the US dollar during 2024, Azul’s dollar-linked costs soared. 

This stark mismatch of currency proved untenable. In Q1 2025, Azul’s net debt ballooned nearly 50% year-over-year. Its share price plummeted from US$8.50 to just US$0.50 before the Chapter 11 filing. Fitch Ratings downgraded the company to CCC-, reflecting a heightened risk of default. In stark contrast, LATAM and Avianca, buoyed by their earlier restructuring, are now being forecast to maintain gross leverage ratios between 2.5x and 3.5x. Azul’s leverage, on the other hand, is projected at around 5.0x this year, driven largely by high lease obligations and interest costs. 

Liquidity and revenue headwinds 

Despite efforts to cut costs and bolster liquidity, during 2024 Azul struggled to generate the free cash flow necessary to reinvest or even sustain operations. Passenger services accounted for 93% of total revenue that year, but fare increases were insufficient to offset spiraling costs. While fares rose modestly in Q1 2024, they plateaued in Q3 and declined in Q4, a concerning trend for a carrier heavily dependent on domestic demand. 

Seasonal fluctuations strained liquidity still further. With limited ancillary revenue – under US$20 per passenger – Azul had few buffers to absorb macroeconomic shocks. Creditors questioned the viability of the airline’s recovery plans, particularly given the lack of near-term liquidity, increasing interest rates and rising inflation. Brazil’s domestic capital markets also offered little respite, with investor appetite waning under broader economic pressures. 

Azul’s lease and debt obligations became increasingly difficult to meet. With 182 out of 220 aircraft leased in US dollars as of 2024, the company’s ability to refinance on favorable terms became doubtful. Additional aircraft on order, coupled with supply chain bottlenecks and delayed deliveries, only added to the burden. 

Fleet and network complexity 

Azul’s operational scale is impressive. It operates Brazil’s most expansive domestic network, with nearly 900 daily flights and over 400 non-stop routes. Its diverse fleet of 137 aircraft spans regional jets, turboprops, widebodies, and cargo aircraft. Yet this breadth is both a strength and a liability. The carrier’s high labor efficiency – 85 full-time employees per aircraft, compared to 104 at Gol and 111 at LATAM – is commendable, but on its own this cannot counterbalance the costs associated with fleet complexity. 

As of December 2024, the airline’s fleet includes Embraer E-Jets, ATR 72s, Airbus A320-family jets, Airbus A330s, Boeing 737 freighters, and Cessna Caravans. This diversity creates significant logistical and cost challenges related to maintenance, training, spare parts, and engine management. Moreover, the viability of Azul’s cargo operations, while potentially lucrative, is undermined by limited scale and operational redundancy. 

A strategic reset 

Chapter 11 offers Azul a pivotal opportunity to recalibrate its business model for long-term sustainability. While reducing leverage and restoring liquidity are immediate goals, the airline must also undertake deeper structural transformation in order to regain competitiveness. One critical step would be the divestiture of non-core assets such as maintenance, repair, and overhaul (MRO) facilities and full-flight simulators, which could generate much-needed capital and allow management to focus on core operational priorities. 

At the network level, Azul should concentrate on high-demand, high-yield routes, both business and leisure, while phasing out marginal or underperforming markets. Rationalizing seasonal and regional routes would help improve aircraft utilization and bolster key metrics like PRASK. 

Fleet simplification is equally important. By consolidating aircraft types – ideally to a total of no more than three – Azul could achieve significant operational efficiencies. Replacing smaller regional aircraft with larger, next-generation narrowbodies would reduce unit costs (CASK) and improve per-departure revenue.  

The airline should also address its limited ancillary revenue potential. Raising ancillary revenue per passenger through offerings such as baggage fees, seat selection, onboard sales, and loyalty programs remains an untapped source of margin improvement, as evidenced by carriers like Ryanair, Spirit, Volaris and Wizz Air. In parallel, Azul could benefit from introducing two-class configurations on selected domestic routes to attract premium travelers and enable better revenue segmentation and enhanced ancillary revenue potential.  

Finally, a reassessment of Azul’s cargo strategy is warranted. Scaling back or divesting from dedicated freighter operations would allow it to concentrate its resources where returns are strongest, improving overall efficiency and financial performance. 

Azul’s path through Chapter 11 is not merely about financial repair. It is also a chance to fundamentally reshape the airline for a more resilient future. With thoughtful execution of a restructured fleet strategy, improved cost discipline and a leaner network model, Azul could regain competitiveness in a challenging market while competing in a more balanced field against LATAM and Gol. 

The airline’s ability to emerge from bankruptcy stronger will depend on its willingness to challenge legacy structures and make bold, forward-looking decisions. While the road ahead is complex, the case for decisive transformation has never been clearer. 

Renato spent 15 years as Senior Cabin Crew in the Middle East and has a lifelong passion for aviation history. He has also led the largest research project on Alberto Santos-Dumont and was condecorated by the Brazilian Air Force for efforts in aviation preservation.   

Renato is now working to shape the future of private aviation, connecting today’s innovators with tomorrow’s history.  

The views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of AeroTime.    

When we think or speak about the global aviation market, the southern hemisphere is not often considered. 

However, Brazilian planemaker Embraer is currently at the peak of its global influence and continues to rise. The company ranks among the world’s top executive jet manufacturers, with its Phenom and Praetor series reshaping private aviation.  

These aircraft are now trusted by heads of state, visionary CEOs, and entrepreneurs across continents, combining cutting-edge technology with Brazilian design and efficiency. 

In the commercial market, Embraer is the third-largest manufacturer worldwide. 

In military aviation, Embraer has recently impressed the global aerospace community with the KC-390 Millennium, a next-generation, multi-mission transport aircraft that challenges legacy models in performance, payload, and versatility. 
 
Behind this ascent is a number that speaks volumes: today, an Embraer-built aircraft takes off every 10 seconds somewhere around the world. That is over 8,000 takeoffs per day and more than 150 million passengers per year, a living demonstration of the vision and resolve that first took flight decades ago. 
 
Now imagine sitting with the pioneers who made flying a possibility: Santos-Dumont, the brilliant dreamer; the Wright brothers, who turned mechanics into magic; Louis Blériot, who crossed the English Channel in a wood-and-fabric monoplane; and Amelia Earhart, who saw the horizon as a challenge, not a boundary. 

Or perhaps Ozires Silva, Brazil’s own living aviation pioneer. The man who did not just believe Brazil could build aircraft, he proved it, built an entire company, lead it, and fought for it again and again. 
 
Few individuals have shaped the trajectory of an entire industry the way Ozires Silva shaped aviation. As a military pilot, engineer, entrepreneur, and public servant, Silva did not merely found Embraer. He repeatedly rescued, redirected, and reinvented it. His personal convictions and professional decisions were inseparable from the company’s transformation from a state-backed experiment into one of the world’s most competitive aircraft manufacturers. His story is not just about building airplanes; it is about building a country’s confidence in itself. 
 
Born in 1931 in Bauru, São Paulo, Silva came of age in a Brazil that relied on imported technologies and foreign industries. After joining the Brazilian Air Force at the age of 17, he flew missions across remote areas of the Amazon. There, he saw firsthand the vast distances and difficult terrain that separated Brazilians from one another, and began to understand aviation’s power not just as a tool of transport, but as an agent of national integration. His journey began not with ambition for wealth or fame, but with a simple, patriotic question: Why can’t Brazil build its own airplanes? 
 
Determined to change his country’s course, Silva enrolled at the Instituto Tecnológico de Aeronáutica (ITA), a newly created engineering school designed to empower Brazil’s aerospace future. There, he honed the technical skills needed to turn vision into reality. After graduation, he joined the Centro Técnico Aeroespacial (CTA) and led the design of a small regional aircraft, the EMB-110 Bandeirante. But when it came time to move from prototype to production, Silva faced a defining obstacle: no investor would back the project. 

Brazil’s industrial elite believed aircraft manufacturing was too risky, too expensive, and best left to the Americans or Europeans. Financial institutions refused to invest. Friends and colleagues urged Silva to abandon the project. But he did not retreat. With conviction and diplomatic skill, Silva took his case to the federal government. In 1969, his efforts bore fruit: the state created Embraer, and Ozires Silva became its first president. 
 
As Silva built Embraer from the ground up, he faced the full spectrum of challenges: funding gaps, foreign competition, military skepticism, and bureaucratic inertia. But he also gained allies – engineers, test pilots, ministers, and industrialists who believed in the mission. Under his leadership, Embraer launched successful aircraft like the Xingu, the Tucano, and the EMB-120 Brasília, proving that Brazilian technology could compete globally. Each aircraft addressed a logistical challenge for Brazil while being designed with international scalability in mind. His dual identity as both engineer and public servant allowed him to bridge technical ambition with national strategy. 
 
Though the company grew, Silva realized Embraer’s long-term success required independence from political cycles. In the late 1980s, he stepped away to serve as president of Petrobras and later as Minister of Infrastructure. But Embraer faltered under state control, and by the early 1990s, it faced severe financial trouble. Silva returned in 1991 to lead a bold and controversial initiative: privatization. 

Transforming a national aerospace icon into a private corporation was not easy, but Silva understood that global success demanded agility, innovation, and competitive governance. The privatization, completed in 1994, marked a turning point. Embraer quickly transitioned from a government-dependent firm to a lean, focused competitor in the international market. That transformation paved the way for the ERJ-145 regional jet, a commercial success that secured Embraer’s position as a leader in regional aviation. 

By the early 2000s, Embraer was exporting aircraft around the globe, serving airlines in Europe, Asia, and North America. Brazil, which once imported all of its aircraft, now stood as a producer of world-class jets. Silva’s mission had become reality. 

Although he could have retired, Silva instead chose to reinvest in the future. He served as president of universities, led biotech firms, and authored books such as ‘Cartas a um Jovem Empreendedor’ and ‘Nas Asas da Educação’, encouraging Brazil’s youth to embrace science, innovation, and entrepreneurship. He became not only a symbol of Brazil’s industrial power but also its moral voice on development and education. 

In 2021, Silva received the Daniel Guggenheim Medal, the most prestigious award in aeronautical engineering, becoming the first Brazilian to earn the honor. Embraer later renamed its main facility in São José dos Campos the Ozires Silva Unit and, in 2024, installed a suspended replica of the Bandeirante at its entrance, symbolizing the dream that first took flight under his leadership. 

Silva’s life reflects the classical arc of a hero’s journey: a young man called by a national challenge, tested by rejection and risk, who returns to deliver a gift to his people. That gift, a globally competitive aerospace company, continues to transform Brazil’s place in the world. 

Now imagine if you could sit with a giant. One of those rare individuals who did not just witness history, but shaped it. A living peer to the names we study in books. Ozires Silva is that giant. And unlike so many pioneers whose greatness we only recognize after they are gone, he is still among us. We owe it to ourselves, and to history, to honor our heroes while they are alive. 

Ozires Silva is 94, and continues to still inspire.  

Today, he serves as Africa Chapter Director and Global Secretariat for the Drone Logistics Ecosystem, Chief of Staff: Advisors at the Advanced Air Mobility Institute, and Vice President at Open AAM Org. Passionate about aerospace and aviation, Gary focuses on sustainability and what he calls the third era of aviation: the electric age.

The views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of AeroTime.

For some, Archer Aviation’s Midnight electric vertical take-off and landing (eVTOL) aircraft may seem sleek, ambitious, and full of promise. However, many of the claims we hear from eVTOL developers and industry pundits also feel like what consultants like to call “big hairy audacious goals”, or BHAGs.

This article explores those BHAGs, the bold visions shaping the future of urban air mobility (UAM), and asks how realistic they really are.

Automotive scale manufacturing

Can one really compare the manufacturing of Toyota Corollas with composite aircraft making?

When it comes to the Archer and Stellantis forecasts of producing 150 aircraft in the first year and eventually up to 650 aircraft a year, one has to look at the biggest general aviation aircraft maker, Cirrus. According to the General Aviation Manufacturers Association (GAMA) annual shipment report for 2024, Cirrus sold and delivered 630 SR series composite piston engined aircraft and 101 SF50 light jets. Stellantis’ Maserati MC20 Modena carbon fibre body and chassis supercar recorded sales of just 260 cars, down from 1,244 in 2023. The MC20 has a current base price of $314k, compared to a minimum of $5 million for an Archer Midnight.

Autonomous and Simple Vehicle Operation (SVO) flight systems

It is unlikely that the EHang’s 216S autonomous flight system is better than Sikorsky‘s Matrix system for current and future helicopters, which provides SVO and autonomous flight capability for wildfire fighting, or Rotor Technologies’ R550X (Autonomous Robinson R44).

eVTOL developers touting their simple vehicle control systems are offering the same capabilities as Skyryse with SkyOS on their Skyryse One (an SVO Robinson R66 and Sikorsky UH60 upgrade).

Operational capabilities and use cases

Comparing the Joby Aviation S4, with the Robinson Tier One eR44 and fuel cell electric SHy4 with the Robinson United Therapeutics Corporation fuel cell eR44 and planned eR66 for AAM, there are questions that need to be asked. Will Joby’s aircraft be better suited for air shuttle and air taxi operations than Robinson’s? And can the Joby fulfill all the use cases that Robinson’s aircraft can?

Vertiports: are they new?

The first vertiport, the Dallas CBD Vertiport opened in 1994 at the Kay Bailey Hutchinson Convention Centre. This opening followed the Federal Aviation Administration’s issuing of AC 150/5390-3 in May 1991, in anticipation of a civilian version of the Boeing Bell Flight V-22. The second, Vertiport Chicago, opened in 2015.

Like airports, heliports can also be adapted for other (e)VTOL configurations by installing chargers and the required fire suppression systems, as is planned in the United Arab Emirates.

The market(s)

UAM has been around for the last eight decades, so given the realities of owning and operating aircraft vs. an Uber vehicle, EV, or ICEV, the market for air taxi and air shuttle services will be the same High-net-worth individuals (HNWI) and business executive travelers who currently use services like Blade.

There are certainly helicopter use cases that an eVTOL can fulfil once battery energy densities or the weight of hydrogen tanks can be reduced to acceptable weights, from emergency medical services and humanitarian missions to law enforcement.

Sales forecasts

Archer forecasts that it will sell 150 aircraft in its first year of production, eventually ramping up to between 650 and 1,000 aircraft per year. But that raises an important question: will Archer, or any other eVTOL developer, really be able to sell and deliver that many multimillion-dollar aircraft? For comparison, Robinson sells around 160 R44 helicopters annually in a market that currently totals about 1,000 helicopters per year. Ehang has sold and delivered 216 of its EH216S (type certified by the CAAC in October 2023), to air tourism operators.

Conclusion – Greening aviation

A passenger eVTOL is essentially a greener alternative to traditional helicopters, which have served the urban air mobility (UAM) market since the first commercial models were certified in 1946, as well as to powered-lift aircraft like the Leonardo AW609 tiltrotor.

The true value of electric aircraft, whether fixed-wing (eCTOL and eSTOL) or vertical take-off and landing (eVTOL), lies in their potential to make aviation more sustainable and reduce the aviation industry’s reliance on fossil fuels.

Follow Dr. Klaus Radermacher’s LinkedIn newsletter “Think. Mobility. Differently.” for regular insights on mobility concepts and transportation systems.     

The views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of AeroTime. 

Every homeowner can relate to this, even in their private lives. It often takes longer to renovate and ends up being more expensive than planned! When renovating the Wilhelminian-era house my family and I have lived in for over 20 years, the total costs were about 10% higher than the estimate, which had been prepared by a professional to the best of his and our knowledge and belief. However, we were largely able to stick to the schedule. A 10% cost increase can be factored into financial planning, and it is widely recommended to have a corresponding buffer.

What I am writing about today takes on completely different dimensions. Unfortunately, in Germany we have almost become accustomed to the fact that transport infrastructure projects regularly exceed the originally planned costs and construction times by 50 to 100%. However, looking back at Berlin’s major airport, BER, even a 100% overrun barely scratched the surface of the spiraling costs and delays.

I certainly do not want to give the impression that I know best in hindsight. I do not work in the construction industry, nor do I have experience managing billion-dollar projects. I am not interested in looking for and stigmatizing those responsible. That is why I do not mention any names of people who were and are responsible for the disaster. I conducted time-consuming and intensive research against the backdrop of my experience with holistic Business Excellence. As a trained “Business Excellence Assessor” based on the EFQM model, I have taken part in dozens of assessments in Germany and abroad over a period of more than 25 years. Companies for which I have been responsible as Managing Director and CEO have won various national and international excellence awards on several occasions. To put it bluntly right at the beginning: the entire story around BER airport has nothing to do with practical excellence; the opposite is the case.

The number of results for a Google search with the keywords “BER cost increase” amounts to almost eight million. If one replaces “cost increase” with “delay” the number is almost 20 million. No one is in a position to retrospectively sift through all of these “sources”, evaluate them or even distinguish between correct information and false reports. In connection with the research, I read several dozen reports and newspaper articles from sources generally regarded as reputable. In doing so, several main reasons for the disastrous development of this project repeatedly emerged.

The same criticism is repeatedly found in the sources reviewed, which I would like to summarize as follows:

Choosing the wrong location

Shortly after the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, initial considerations for the new capital airport were already underway. Lufthansa, the former East German airline Interflug, and later the companies Mannesmann and AEG conducted planning and drew up master plans. Before any spatial planning proceedings were even initiated in 1993, 100 hectares of farmland had already been purchased by the operator of the former East Berlin Schönefeld Airport at an inflated price of €200 million. This land was never used for the airport and today houses, among other things, a branch of a discount food retailer (Handelsblatt).

The spatial planning procedure conducted by the state of Brandenburg examined seven different locations based on five criteria: environmental impact, economic viability, landside transport links, airport planning, and spatial development. The systematic review found that Schönefeld was the least suitable of all the locations examined. In particular, it was already pointed out during this review that it would be impossible to build an airport of the envisioned size – 60 million passengers per year, four runways – in Schönefeld.

As is well known, the Schönefeld site was chosen after all. It was the first time in the history of the Federal Republic of Germany that the recommendation of the regional planning procedure was not followed (Wikipedia). The noise protection problems for thousands of residents were pointed out very early on but were initially simply ignored by the political authorities. After a massive wave of lawsuits from those affected and after the required noise protection requirements had been systematically ignored, around €600 million had to be spent on noise protection, which had not been included in any initial cost planning.

Failed privatization, fragmented contract award, and no general contractor

As early as 1996 it had been decided that the Berlin Airport Company would be privatized, and that the new airport should be built by private investors. Following a corresponding tender, a consortium was awarded the construction contract in 1999. Another consortium, which had lost the tender process, successfully sued, and the Brandenburg Higher Regional Court found that the company that had been awarded the contract was suspected of fraud. The two consortiums then submitted a joint bid, wanting to take over the airport company, among other things, but no agreement was reached with the political leaders responsible. The three shareholders, the states of Berlin and Brandenburg, and the Federal Republic of Germany then decided to build the airport at their own expense!

At the same time, it was decided that the new terminal was not to be built by one company, but would be divided into seven construction lots, which later led to a total of 50 partial lots. The absence of a responsible general contractor is seen in retrospect as one of the most serious mistakes and one of the main causes of the disaster that later developed. The resulting multitude of tenders led to planning and construction taking place in parallel. The company commissioned with the planning was overwhelmed by the tenders, and the detailed plans required at the start of construction were simply not available. To make matters worse, the planning company was terminated during construction, which many companies involved in the project considered “completely idiotic: They cut off their head” (FAZ).

Lack of expertise among decision-makers, no external independent controlling

Also of little help to successful project management was the fact that the politicians responsible who had steered the project for years as members of the Supervisory Board lacked any professional expertise. They were politicians with no experience in large-scale construction projects. When difficulties arose, new managing directors and project managers were repeatedly hired in as ‘saviors,’ released from their duties, and then brought back again.

At no point was a technically competent project organization established. There was also never an external controlling department that could have provided advice on major strategic decisions. Rather, politicians repeatedly decided during construction to make drastic changes to the previous plans and implemented them against any understanding of the project. For example, it was subsequently decided to convert the two-story terminal building into a three-story building by adding a mezzanine. This significantly complicated previously planned technical systems, such as the fire protection system, which later led to the smoke extraction system becoming inoperable.

The proven professional incompetence of various members of the supervisory board was an issue for years, repeatedly making political headlines and leading to accusations, but never resulted in any change. The supervisory board was repeatedly accused of “being completely incapable of critically examining the processes” (FAZ). In retrospect, there are numerous reports that this lack of competence was sometimes compensated for by an arrogant demeanor. In addition, critical voices from within the project were consistently silenced. Scaremongering, a “train of wagons mentality”, and an “unspeakable atmosphere” are terms that were repeatedly used by those involved. As early as 2012, one of the building contractors was quoted as saying: “Anyone who dared to say something was made a pig of.” (FAZ).

Dishonest communication, cover-up and whitewashing of the facts

For years, the repeated postponements of the opening date and the dramatically rising costs were publicly attributed to the lack of effective fire protection. The fact is that the problems with fire protection began at the latest when, in the middle of the advanced planning phase, the decision was made to add another floor. In addition to the repeatedly mentioned fire protection system, there were many other serious deficiencies whose rectification cost billions and resulted in years of delays. Cables were laid improperly, sometimes without documentation, which made inspections and repairs difficult. There were faulty and incorrectly dimensioned escalators, non-functioning automatic doors, and leaky roof structures. Leaky shafts and inadequate seals allowed water to penetrate cable trays and technical shafts, leading to short circuits and corrosion in electrical installations and control systems. At the peak, around 120,000 individual deficiencies were recorded.

Although these defects were already known and it was predicted that it would take years to rectify them, the public was repeatedly presented with new opening dates. According to experts, these dates were already unachievable at the time of communication. The fact that during the construction phase and particularly during the rectification of defects, settlements were reached with individual companies involved in the construction work, whereby the companies were fully or partially released from their usual warranty obligations, is further evidence of the incredible incompetence of those involved. The aim was to avoid time-consuming disputes which could have led to further delays. Furthermore, in the overall project, which can only be described as chaotic, it was often no longer possible to attribute proven defects to the source due to a lack of planning and documentation. To this day, many of these agreements are not transparent, but there are numerous dubious “confidentiality clauses” in contracts and agreements not publicly available in which companies received lump sum compensation payments.

Unfortunately, this cover-up tactic and lack of transparency towards the public, who ultimately have to pay with their tax money for the additional billions created by mismanagement and incompetence, continues to this day. A special report prepared by the Federal Audit Office in 2020 is subject to secrecy and has not been published, contrary to the Federal Audit Office’s usual practice. However, it is known that the Federal Audit Office continues to point out that further financial aid in the hundreds of millions of euros to the airport company may be necessary from the federal government.

Are things different elsewhere?

Airports have been and continue to be built all over the world, including major expansions of existing airports and completely new and replacement buildings (Phnom Penh, New Delhi, Dubai, Riyadh, Gujarat, Lisbon). Two of the largest new construction projects to have taken place in the past decades have already been in operation for several years. The construction of the four current terminals of Changi Airport in Singapore (SIN), which were completed in 1980, 1990, 2008 and 2017, were very successful projects in terms of cost and time. SIN is considered a global benchmark for airports, both in terms of planning and construction, as well as subsequent operation, and has received numerous awards for efficiency, customer satisfaction, and cost management. Singapore Airport is now also one of the city-state’s tourist attractions. Residents and visitors are explicitly encouraged to visit the airport as a leisure attraction; every Singapore travel guide recommends setting aside at least half a day for it.

In Hong Kong, too, an entire airport was relocated from the city center to the surrounding area. Today’s Hong Kong International Airport (HKG), located on an island in the west of the city, opened in July 1998, replacing the old Kai Tak Airport, which was located much closer to the city. Construction began in 1991, and the opening was originally planned for 1997 but had to be postponed by about six months. Planning and construction took place when Hong Kong was still a British crown colony, and therefore outside of China’s political system. The costs of this project were also underestimated and, upon completion, were roughly double the initial estimates. In retrospect, the technical complexity is primarily cited for this; the new airport is located on an artificially created island, on which around 1,200 hectares of land were reclaimed through land removal. During the construction period, not only the airport, which is now one of the largest aviation hubs in the world, but also the entire transport infrastructure including tunnels, bridges, and high-speed trains was completed.

Conclusion

“Berlin residents will be getting the best airport in the world!” was one of the euphoric statements made by one of the “managers” responsible when the construction of the airport, under the responsibility of politicians, was still being described as a “showpiece project.” Later, this quote appeared primarily in satirical formats and cabaret events. But back to the facts.

The opening of the airport was officially postponed six times. After construction began in 2006, October 2011 was considered the official opening date for many years. Afterwards, a salami tactic was used: June 2012, March 2013 and October 2013 were all officially communicated opening dates.

When nothing came of it in October 2013 and the full extent of the disaster gradually became public, the opening was postponed indefinitely. The end of 2017 was long on the table as a completion date, but even that was several years too optimistic. The opening finally took place on October 31, 2020. The planned five-year construction period turned into 14 years!

This is a brief overview of the delays: almost a tripling of the construction time, and six announced opening dates! Most sources estimate the construction costs at the start of construction to be between just over €2 and 2.4 billion. After the opening was canceled for the first time, the first major cost explosion occurred, with estimates of €4.3 billion in 2012. By 2017, the figure had risen to €5.4 billion. In 2020, construction costs alone were estimated at between €6 and €6.5 billion. If the interest payments and other capital costs, which must be considered from a business perspective as well, are properly calculated, the total costs amount to more than €7 billion.

On the cost side, it is also important to mention that the airport operating company is heavily indebted due to its construction history. Although positive operating results have been achieved in recent years, the bottom line for 2023 was a loss of €212 million.

All in all, this is a shocking assessment. The analysis shows that serious mistakes were made right from the start, many of which in retrospect appear avoidable. It starts with the disregard of the site report and the political decision in favor of the least suitable location. The offer from a general contractor was too expensive for the decision-makers, which is why they thought it could be made cheaper without a general contractor. The result of this assessment is now known all over the world. During my research I have found several indications that it was clear from the outset that the costs would be considerably higher, but that approval for the project would probably never have been obtained, if the truth had been told at that time. This would not be an isolated case for transport infrastructure projects in Germany, we have seen this many times before (LinkedIn).

When it became clear midway through the project that it would be much, much more expensive and take much, much longer, a series of wrong decisions were made that worsened the situation and made it more expensive for taxpayers. The principle was: close your eyes and go, whatever the cost.

A systematic project review, as would be customary in any properly managed company, has not yet taken place. Quite the opposite. Existing investigation reports are being withheld from the public on flimsy grounds. Evidently, nothing has been learned from the BER disaster. None of the people involved have been held accountable in any way. The story of BER must serve as a lesson that the legitimacy of politicians acquired through democratic elections should under no circumstances be equated with professional qualifications. I’ve written about this before (LinkedIn).

So, has BER become the best airport in the world for passengers? This question is certainly assessed subjectively and differently by every traveler. A somewhat more objective approach, based on surveys of thousands of travelers according to internationally defined criteria, is the World Airport Award presented every year by Skytrax. Two of the airports mentioned earlier as positive examples are at the top of the awards, which were last presented in April 2025: Singapore in 1st place (winning the global airport ranking for the 13th time) and Hong Kong in 6th place. European airports also made it into the top 10, with Munich in Germany, for example, coming in 9th. BER took 58th place in this ranking. Coming up from 100th place (!) in 2024, BER was named “World’s Most Improved Airport” this year. That is something, at least.

The views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of AeroTime.

The ongoing struggle between airlines and Global Distribution Systems (GDS) is impossible for anyone in the industry to ignore. GDSs were initially introduced by airlines to distribute their content to travel sellers globally. However, with the rise of low-cost carriers (LCCs) and the advent of internet-based distribution in the early 2000s, traditional airlines began to focus more on the high costs associated with GDS distribution, often ranked as the third or fourth largest expense for an airline. Despite the introduction of new technologies, these costs remain stubbornly high, and the relationship between airlines and GDS providers remains strained, even as the era of litigation has faded.

Key challenges with GDS

GDS platforms do not provide airlines with the same technical capabilities as their own websites. The primary challenge, however, is the commercial model. Airlines pay GDSs a fee for each ticketed segment, with roughly half of that fee passed on as incentives to travel sellers, based on their booking volumes.

This model means that airlines have limited influence over the distribution of their content, as the incentives are controlled by the GDS. Another pain point is the distribution landscape, where third parties such as schedule and fare distributors, as well as payment clearing houses like BSP and ARC, add an additional layer of complexity. In turn, this reduces the airline’s ability to react fast to any distribution changes. In response, many airlines have sought to address the cost issue by introducing NDC for their indirect channels, or a GDS NDC solution. The airline typically introduces a GDS surcharge, and while GDS NDC solutions, essentially a business competing with their own, help reduce costs to some extent, the airline still applies a surcharge.

Many travel sellers rely on GDS-centric process flows such as mid and back-office, accounting, invoicing etc. This in turn leads to the seller becoming reliant on the GDS, making it difficult to integrate or account for bookings coming from outside the GDS. This leads to further fragmentation, as sellers must manage content from multiple sources, each with different standards and integration requirements.

The reality of fragmented content

Fragmentation means travel sellers must juggle content from GDSs, direct airline connections and airline websites, each using different standards and systems. When the mid- and back-office tools, as well as accounting and booking systems, are designed around GDS content, this further complicates the integration of direct or alternative sources. In addition, the charging models for content come with a level of complexity which is steadily increasing.

The traditional travel seller commercial model is substantially challenged today.

Key Examples Include:

TMCs and travel agencies receive incentives based on their GDS booking volumes. As more content moves away from GDSs, these incentives decrease, impacting their revenue. Also, incentives driven by NDC content tend to be lower.

Plus, the agent spends more time making and servicing bookings because of the added complexity.

Airlines’ introduction of surcharges and exclusive direct content adds complexity, requiring system updates and renegotiation of customer agreements.

Agents must decide whether to pursue direct content, which may require new integrations, or partnerships with aggregators, further increasing operational complexity and adding cost.

Is Fragmentation Fixable? Three Perspectives

• Regulation as a Solution
  Some argue that regulation could address the dominance of a few players who control both airline IT hosting and global distribution. Separating these entities (see also: the current debates around tech giants like Google and Facebook) could reduce costs and promote competition. However, regulatory change is unlikely to offer a quick fix.

• Disrupting the Business Model
  There’s long been discussion about reversing the traditional model – that’s to say, having TMCs/agencies pay for GDS services while airlines receive payment for their content. This could incentivize airlines to participate in GDSs, modernize infrastructure and attract LCCs. Agencies would benefit from comprehensive content and travelers would gain confidence in using TMCs. Content would become a revenue driver for airlines and change airline distribution strategies completely.
  Such a product will be best in breed when it becomes customer-led and money is invested focusing on true modernization, rather than ‘broken’ NDC solutions with Band-Aids. However, the dominance of a few major providers makes such a shift unlikely in the near-term.

• Emergence of New Entrants
  Standardization and API-led distribution could offer a complete alternative and solve the issue of fragmentation. With advances in AI and content aggregation, the future may lie in platforms that seamlessly integrate content from all sources, regardless of the booking channel. This would allow sellers to focus on curating the best options for travelers, rather than executing transactions. Modernizing underlying processes like pricing, settlement and accounting could deliver significant cost savings, as well as a more connected travel experience.

Looking ahead from a customer perspective

We must start talking about the customer pain points and what we can do to fix them. No matter which path we take with distribution and fragmented content, the customer is looking for simplified processes. They don’t understand why they must contact their travel seller when they want to change their flight. Breaking down the commercial barriers between airlines and sellers will almost certainly have a positive outcome for the end user who needs a seamless travel experience, a factor frequently ignored in the current airline community. They should be allowed to freely move between airline and seller, regardless of the point of sale.

Similarly, they don’t understand why they cannot book their own content and bring it into a reservation, or why the website they use for their leisure travel offers a much better user experience than the one they must use for work.

Achieving seamless integration and reducing fragmentation will require not only technological innovation but also new business models and, potentially, regulatory intervention. The goal is a future where content is accessible, processes are streamlined, and all players – airlines, sellers and travelers – can benefit from greater choice and efficiency.

I wish to thank Aash Shravah at Traxo for valuable input.

For the readers of this article, I welcome your thoughts on how you see a way forward.

The views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of AeroTime. 

For decades, Global Navigation Satellite Systems (GNSS) like GPS have been the invisible backbone of modern aviation, enabling precise navigation, timing, and safety across millions of flights worldwide. As reliance on satellite signals has grown, so have their vulnerabilities. In recent years, a surge in GPS jamming and spoofing incidents, driven by both state and non-state actors, has exposed the fragility of the system, threatening flight safety and operational integrity on a global scale. 

A new generation of navigation technologies is emerging, poised to render GPS not just optional, but potentially obsolete. From quantum sensors to stellar navigation, innovators like Q-CTRL and France’s Astradia are leading a technological revolution that could fundamentally reshape how aircraft find their way in the world. 

The GPS vulnerability crisis 

GNSS underpins everything from enroute navigation and precision approaches to air traffic management and collision avoidance. However, GPS signals, transmitted from satellites orbiting 20,000 km above, are inherently weak by the time they reach Earth. This makes them highly susceptible to interference by relatively low-power ground-based devices. 

Jamming: The loud silence 

GPS jamming occurs when ground-based devices intentionally transmit signals that overpower those from GNSS satellites, causing aircraft navigation systems to lose reliable position and timing information. According to Aireon’s April 2025 white paper, the scale and severity of GPS jamming has increased significantly in recent years, particularly in regions experiencing military conflict such as Eastern Europe and the Middle East. Aireon’s global, space-based ADS-B data confirms that civil aircraft are regularly exposed to jamming spillover, resulting in navigation outages and the need for pilots to revert to backup methods like Inertial Reference Systems or DME. The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) issued a safety bulletin in July 2024 warning of the growing operational impact of GPS interference, with some models estimating an 80% increase in GPS outage events between 2021 and 2024. Hundreds of daily flights are now affected in the most impacted regions, making GPS jamming a persistent hazard for international aviation 

Spoofing: The invisible threat 

Even more insidious than jamming is GPS spoofing, where counterfeit signals are broadcast to mislead aircraft receivers into calculating false positions and times. Aireon’s data and OPSGROUP estimates indicate that spoofing attacks surged by as much as 500% over the course of 2024. Spoofing incidents have been widely reported over Europe, the Baltic Sea, and the Black Sea, with Aireon’s ADS-B analytics revealing improbable flight tracks, sudden position jumps of over 20 nautical miles, and “ghost aircraft” appearing on radar. Such anomalies can create significant risks, including mid-air collision hazards and loss of situational awareness. 

A particularly dangerous consequence of GPS spoofing is its impact on the Enhanced Ground Proximity Warning System (EGPWS). When an aircraft’s spoofed position erroneously indicates proximity to terrain, the EGPWS may issue false terrain warnings. This can cause a startle effect amongst pilots and can be highly disruptive, as they may instinctively initiate unnecessary evasive maneuvers, potentially compromising flight safety. In current practice, when crews suspect their aircraft is in an area where they may encounter spoofing, the recommended mitigation is to switch off the EGPWS system to avoid these false warnings, though this, in turn, removes a critical layer of terrain awareness protection. 

Q-CTRL’s Quantum navigation: a new paradigm 

Amid this crisis, Sydney-based Q-CTRL has pioneered a GPS-free quantum navigation system called Ironstone Opal. Leveraging the Earth’s magnetic field and quantum sensors, Ironstone Opal provides precise positioning without any reliance on satellite signals. 

How it works: 

• Quantum magnetic anomaly detection: Ultra-sensitive quantum magnetometers detect subtle, location-specific variations in the Earth’s magnetic field, which serve as natural “fingerprints” for navigation. 

• AI-enhanced signal processing: Machine learning filters out noise from aircraft electronics and the environment, isolating genuine magnetic signals for accurate positioning. 

• Self-contained operation: Ironstone Opal operates entirely onboard, immune to jamming and spoofing, and requires no external signals. 

Performance and trials 

Flight tests in 2025 demonstrated 46x lower positioning error compared to traditional INS, achieving 10-meter accuracy in diverse environments. The system is compact enough for drones and small aircraft and has already secured a $1 million defense contract for further development. 

Advantages: 

• Immunity to GPS interference: No reliance on satellites eliminates jamming/spoofing risks. 

• Privacy and security: Self-contained system reduces cyber vulnerabilities. 

• Operational resilience: Enables navigation in GPS-denied environments, including polar regions and conflict zones. 

Astradia: Stellar navigation makes GPS “officially obsolete” 

While quantum navigation has captured headlines, a French start-up is now making global waves with a radically different approach. Astradia, developed by Sodern (a subsidiary of ArianeGroup), is the world’s first daytime star tracker for aviation navigation, hailed as “revolutionary” and “the first system to render GPS officially obsolete”. 

How Astradia works: 

Astradia leverages stellar navigation technology, using a star tracker to determine precise position and orientation by referencing the fixed positions of stars. Unlike GPS, which relies on vulnerable radio signals, Astradia is immune to jamming and spoofing. 

• Day and night operation: Advanced optics and algorithms allow Astradia to function in all lighting conditions, extending stellar navigation beyond its traditional nighttime limits. 

• No reliance on radio signals: Because it uses celestial objects, Astradia is unaffected by electromagnetic interference, jamming, or spoofing. 

• Aerospace-grade precision: Developed with space industry heritage, Astradia offers accuracy suitable for both civilian and military aviation. 

Aviation implications 

Astradia’s independence from all radio-frequency signals means it can serve as a robust backup, or even a primary navigation source, in environments where GPS is denied or unreliable. Its commercial launch in May 2025, timed for the Paris Air Show, signals a paradigm shift in navigation technology. 

Competing technologies and industry responses 

Aireon’s space-based monitoring 

Aireon’s GPS Interference Metric uses a network of 66 low-Earth orbit satellites to detect jamming and spoofing in real time. While it doesn’t replace GPS, it provides critical situational awareness for air traffic controllers and airlines, helping them respond quickly to disruptions. 

Safran’s anti-jamming and anti-spoofing filters 

Safran Aerospace integrates multi-constellation GNSS receivers with inertial measurement units and cryptographic verification to filter out spoofed signals. While effective against basic attacks, sophisticated spoofers can still bypass these defenses, highlighting the need for more fundamental solutions. 

The EU’s multi-technology PNT initiative 

The European Union’s 2025 Positioning, Navigation, and Timing (PNT) program tests multiple technologies to reduce GPS dependence, including quantum timing, enhanced LORAN (eLORAN), and optical ground systems. This diversified approach reflects the complexity of replacing GPS and the absence of a single silver bullet. 

Technical and adoption challenges 

Sensor miniaturization and integration 

Quantum magnetometers typically require cryogenic cooling, posing challenges for aircraft integration. Q-CTRL’s partnership with Advanced Navigation aims to develop shoebox-sized, portable quantum sensors by 2027. 

Geomagnetic map resolution 

Current geomagnetic maps have resolutions around 50 km, insufficient for precision approaches. Q-CTRL uses AI to generate hyperlocal magnetic maps, but widespread adoption will require extensive flight data collection. 

Regulatory certification 

No quantum or stellar navigation system has yet received certification from major aviation authorities. The UK’s 2025 quantum navigation trials on Royal Navy vessels mark early regulatory engagement, but broader certification remains a multi-year process. 

The future: Hybrid systems and global navigation resilience 

Industry experts foresee a hybrid navigation future combining: 

• Quantum navigation for GPS-denied environments 

• Stellar navigation as a radio-signal-independent backup 

• AI-driven spoofing detection to flag anomalies in real time 

• Multi-sensor fusion integrating GNSS, INS, quantum sensors, and RF geolocation 

For example, Spire’s Radio Frequency Geolocation (RFGL) system uses satellite triangulation to independently verify aircraft positions. Similarly, APG’s NaviGuard employs machine learning to detect spoofing patterns in real time. 

As the United Nations and aviation safety agencies express “grave concern” over the increasing incidents of interference affecting global navigation infrastructure, the race intensifies between quantum innovators like Q-CTRL, stellar pioneers like Astradia, and evolving spoofing technologies. The industry’s survival may hinge on rendering GPS optional rather than essential. 

Navigating the next era 

The vulnerabilities of GPS have become a critical aviation security challenge, with jamming and spoofing incidents escalating rapidly worldwide. Traditional backups like Inertial Navigation are insufficient for the demands of modern aviation, especially in contested or remote environments. 

Q-CTRL’s quantum navigation and Astradia’s stellar navigation represent groundbreaking steps toward a GPS-independent future, offering unparalleled accuracy and resilience. However, significant technical, regulatory, and operational hurdles remain before widespread adoption. Complementary technologies from Aireon, Safran, and EU initiatives underscore that no single solution will suffice. Instead, a layered, hybrid approach is emerging as the path forward. 

As the aviation industry navigates this complex transition, the ultimate goal is clear: to ensure safe, reliable, and secure navigation for all aircraft, even in the face of sophisticated interference and geopolitical instability. The quantum and stellar revolutions in navigation may well be the key to unlocking that future. 

Through Air52, Koen assists airlines, airports and industry stakeholders with practical solutions for complex challenges, drawing on his extensive background in feasibility studies, fleet and network planning, and airline startups. He also contributes to IATA training courses and serves as faculty for Aviation MBA programs.      

The views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of AeroTime.      

Ever wondered how an airline considers adding your city to its map? The decision isn’t made on a whim or gut feeling. It’s the culmination of months, sometimes years, of analysis, debate, and strategic thinking that would make chess grandmasters sweat. 

When airline executives gather to evaluate a potential new route, they place a multi-million-dollar bet on the future. If they get it right, they’ve unlocked a profitable revenue stream. If they get it wrong, they’ve committed aircraft, crew, and marketing resources to a money-losing venture that could drain the company. 

Having spent two decades advising carriers on these exact decisions, I’ve witnessed firsthand how the process blends rigorous data analysis with strategic intuition. Let me walk you through the fascinating journey from the initial concept to adding a new destination to the route map. 

Decoding market demand 

The foundation of any route evaluation starts with a seemingly simple question: Will enough people want to fly this route at prices that cover the costs? Answering this requires the examination of a complex ecosystem of data. 

Network planners begin by analyzing historical booking patterns, but don’t stop there. They examine economic indicators in origin and destination markets, tourism trends, business connections, and demographic shifts. A growing tech hub might signal increased business travel, while rising disposable income could forecast leisure demand. 

The pandemic created unprecedented challenges for this analysis. Traditional forecasting models built on historical data suddenly became unreliable as travel patterns transformed overnight. Airlines now employ hybrid approaches that blend pre-pandemic trends with emerging behaviors, acknowledging that business travel recovery varies dramatically by sector and geography. 

“We used to joke that forecasting was part science, part art, and part luck,” a senior network planner at a major European carrier told me recently. “Post-pandemic, the luck portion has definitely increased.” 

The feasibility filter 

Before financial models are built, potential routes face a series of make-or-break tests that determine whether they deserve deeper analysis. 

First comes alignment with the carrier’s business model. As I explored in my column on airline business models, each carrier has a distinct strategic identity. A premium carrier focused on business travelers won’t suddenly launch leisure-heavy routes to beach destinations, regardless of the potential load factors. The route must fit the airline’s broader strategy and brand positioning. 

Traffic rights also present a notable challenge in international aviation. While we are witnessing progress toward liberalization, the industry continues to operate under a complex framework of bilateral agreements. These agreements can restrict certain routes, limiting frequencies and aircraft types to safeguard the interests of national carriers. 

Airport infrastructure constraints can derail otherwise promising opportunities. A route might show excellent demand, but if the destination airport lacks appropriate facilities, from sufficient runway length to adequate gates, it becomes operationally unfeasible. Environmental restrictions add another layer of complexity, with noise abatement procedures and emissions requirements creating additional operational constraints. 

And then there’s the slot puzzle I detailed in my column on airport slots. At congested airports, securing takeoff and landing slots at commercially viable times can be nearly impossible. A route that looks perfect on paper becomes worthless if your aircraft can only depart at 03:00 or arrive at midnight.  

The network effect 

Modern airlines don’t evaluate routes in isolation. Each new destination becomes part of an interconnected network where the whole should exceed the sum of its parts. 

When evaluating a potential route from Amsterdam to Medellin, KLM doesn’t just consider point-to-point traffic. They analyze how many passengers might connect from Stockholm, Berlin, or Barcelona through Amsterdam to Medellin. They examine how the flight’s timing would integrate with their existing bank structure at Schiphol (AMS), a carefully orchestrated cluster of arrivals followed by departures that maximize passenger connection opportunities. A poorly timed flight that misses these connection windows loses much of its network value. And not only are the airlines concerned about passengers, but they also need to consider how cargo opportunities might enhance the route’s economics. 

The partnership dimension adds another layer of complexity. As I explored in my columns on airline alliances and interline agreements, modern carriers rarely operate in isolation. A marginally profitable route might become strategically vital if it feeds valuable connecting traffic to and from alliance partners or supports codeshare arrangements. 

Take Singapore Airlines’ decision to launch nonstop service to Seattle in 2019. Beyond the local Singapore-Seattle market, the route gained substantial value from connections to Alaska Airlines’ domestic network. The interline partnership allowed Singapore Airlines to tap into dozens of North American markets without operating additional flights. 

The financial equation 

Now comes the moment of truth: will this route make money? 

Revenue forecasting begins with estimating load factors (percentage of seats filled) and yields (revenue per passenger kilometer) across different seasons, days of the week, and fare classes. Sophisticated models predict how passenger segments respond to various price points and schedule options. 

On the cost side, analysts break down expenses into direct operating costs (aircraft, fuel, crew, maintenance, airport fees) and indirect allocations (marketing, overhead, distribution). Modern models now incorporate carbon costs and Sustainable Aviation Fuel (SAF) premiums as environmental considerations become increasingly important. With SAF, which is made from renewable resources rather than fossil fuels, currently costing several times more than conventional jet fuel, its impact on route economics can be substantial. 

Key performance indicators include: 

• RASK (Revenue per Available Seat Kilometer): How much revenue each seat generates when flown one kilometer. Airlines aim to maximize this figure through strategic pricing and high load factors. 

• CASK (Cost per Available Seat Kilometer): The cost to fly one seat one kilometer. Airlines obsessively work to lower this number through fleet modernization and operational efficiencies. The gap between RASK and CASK ultimately determines a route’s profitability. 

• Contribution margin: How much the route adds to the airline’s bottom line after covering variable costs 

• Breakeven load factor: What percentage of seats must be filled to cover costs 

Today’s planning tools run thousands of simulations with varying fuel prices, exchange rates, competitive responses, and economic conditions. This helps planners understand the expected outcome and the range of possible outcomes, and associated risks. 

Beyond the numbers 

Some routes get approved despite marginal economics because they serve broader strategic objectives. Airlines might launch services to a new region to establish market presence ahead of competitors, defend valuable territory from competitive incursion, or position themselves for future growth opportunities. 

When Qatar Airways launched the Doha-Cardiff service in 2018, industry observers questioned the route’s standalone economics. However, the move secured first-mover advantage in an underserved market and demonstrated Qatar’s commitment to expanding its UK presence beyond London. 

Fleet utilization can also drive route decisions. An airline with excess capacity might launch routes that contribute positively to fixed costs, even if they wouldn’t meet normal profitability thresholds. This explains why you sometimes see seasonal routes appear during off-peak periods – they’re making productive use of aircraft that would otherwise sit idle.  

The green dimension 

Environmental considerations have evolved from regulatory compliance to strategic imperative. Today’s route evaluations incorporate sustainability metrics that were barely considered a decade ago. 

New routes undergo environmental impact assessments measuring expected emissions per passenger, opportunities for operational efficiency, and alignment with corporate sustainability goals. With carbon pricing mechanisms expanding globally and consumer awareness growing, routes that might have looked profitable five years ago may no longer pass muster when environmental costs are fully accounted for. 

Some European carriers now evaluate whether short-haul routes might be better served through rail partnerships. Lufthansa’s “intermodal” strategy with Deutsche Bahn allows passengers to book combined air-rail journeys, potentially freeing up valuable slots for more profitable long-haul services while reducing the airline’s carbon footprint. 

The future of route planning 

As aviation recovers from the pandemic, route evaluation continues to evolve. Machine learning algorithms now identify patterns human analysts might miss. Digital twins of airline networks allow planners to simulate the ripple effects of new routes throughout complex systems. Sustainability metrics gain prominence alongside traditional financial indicators. 

Yet for all this technological sophistication, route evaluation remains fundamentally about understanding human behavior and economic trends. The most successful network planners combine analytical rigor with market intuition, balancing data-driven decisions with strategic vision. 

So, the next time you board a flight to a new destination, remember the years of planning behind that simple route map in your seatback pocket. Your journey began long before you stepped onboard in those strategy sessions where someone asked, “What if we flew there?” 

Renato spent 15 years as Senior Cabin Crew in the Middle East and has a lifelong passion for aviation history. He has also led the largest research project on Alberto Santos-Dumont and was condecorated by the Brazilian Air Force for efforts in aviation preservation.   

Renato is now working to shape the future of private aviation, connecting today’s innovators with tomorrow’s history.  

The views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of AeroTime.    

Between the two world wars, aviation soared from fragile experiment to global spectacle. Countries vied for the skies, turning airplanes into emblems of pride, ambition, and technological mastery. Among the boldest aircraft of that era was the Savoia-Marchetti S.55, an otherworldly flying boat that looked like something from a dream and flew like something from the future. 

Conceived by the brilliant Italian designer Alessandro Marchetti, the S.55 first took flight in 1924. With its twin hulls, cockpit embedded in the wing, and push-pull engine configuration perched overhead, the aircraft broke every rule of conventional design and thrived because of it. Its stability and long-range capability made it ideal for crossing oceans. And in 1933, it dazzled the world when Italian Air Minister Italo Balbo led a fleet of 24 S.55s in tight formation across the Atlantic to the Chicago World’s Fair. The sight was so spectacular that “a Balbo” became slang for any massive air formation. 

But six years before that, and nearly a month before Charles Lindbergh made his legendary solo flight from New York to Paris, a single S.55, patched together from the remnants of a wreck, made a quieter, braver, and far more perilous crossing. 

Its name was Jahú. 

The dream of João Ribeiro de Barros 

João Ribeiro de Barros was not born to fly. He came from a wealthy Brazilian family in the town of Jaú (then spelled “Jahú”) and was expected to pursue a career in law. But after watching the 1922 Lisbon–Rio de Janeiro crossing by Portuguese aviators Gago Coutinho and Sacadura Cabral, Barros felt a pull he couldn’t resist. If they could fly from Europe to South America, why couldn’t a Brazilian return the honor? 

He left everything behind, moved to Europe to study aviation, and began planning his dream: a solo-funded transatlantic flight, reversing the Portuguese route, with no foreign sponsorship, no diplomatic backing, and no safety net. 

In 1926, Barros and his mechanic Vasco Cinquini traveled to northern Italy to acquire an S.55. But the factory refused to sell him a new one. His ambition, they feared, would end in disaster, and tarnish the aircraft’s reputation. Instead, they offered him a broken relic, the Alcione, an S.55 that had crashed in Casablanca during a failed Italian mission. It had spent months submerged in saltwater. Barros bought it anyway, for 680,000 lire – a fortune. 

The plane was cosmetically restored, but during its first test flight on Lake Maggiore, it nearly sank. The hulls were rotted through. Barros demanded they be replaced with military-grade pontoons. He renamed the aircraft Jahú, in honor of his hometown, and painted two cheeky phrases on the pontoons: “Vou ali” (“Just going over there”) and “Já volto” (“Be right back”). 

It was a promise – and a dare. 

Sabotage, storms, and a brush with death 

From the moment they launched in October 1926, trouble shadowed them. A faulty engine forced an emergency landing in Spain, where the crew was arrested on suspicion of smuggling. In Gibraltar, sabotage was discovered – soap, dirt, and water had been mixed into the fuel. In Cape Verde, someone had hidden a bronze chunk in the oil system, which could have destroyed the engine midair. 

Then malaria struck Barros. His co-pilot was dismissed for insubordination. The plane was damaged trying to haul it ashore. The dream teetered on the brink. Barros nearly gave up – until a telegram from his mother gave him the strength to carry on. 

In early 1927, a new co-pilot joined: João Negrão, a lieutenant in São Paulo’s Public Force. The crew was reborn. 

Into the Deep Atlantic 

At 04:30 on April 28, 1927, Jahú took off from Porto Praia, Cape Verde. Ahead lay 2,400 kilometers of empty ocean. No radio. No rescue plan. Just skill, nerve, and trust in the machine they had rebuilt with their own hands. 

12 hours later, they spotted Brazil. The aircraft landed near Fernando de Noronha, with one propeller damaged but the crew intact. The Italian ship Angelo Toso rescued them and towed the aircraft ashore. A replacement propeller arrived from Recife, and on May 14, Jahú flew again. 

In Recife, thousands filled the sky with fireworks to welcome them. The crowds cheered. Parades followed. For the final stretch to São Paulo, the crew added Antônio Machado Mendonça, a navy mechanic, uniting army, navy, police, and civilian in a single aircraft. A symbol of national unity. 

Forgotten no more 

The Jahú remains the only surviving Savoia-Marchetti S.55 in the world. Painstakingly restored, it is soon to become a star exhibit at MAPA, Brazil’s forthcoming National Aviation Museum in São Paulo. 

While history lionizes Lindbergh, the Jahú and its crew accomplished a feat no less daring – crossing the Atlantic with no government behind them, no cheering crowds awaiting them on foreign soil, and no margin for error. It was a mission driven by pride, passion, and principle. 

A forgotten flight. A salvaged aircraft. A dream that defied every expectation. 

Before Lindbergh, there was Jahú. 

AeroTime had the pleasure of talking to Jean-Daniel Kosowski, Sales Director at ATR – Singapore Branch Office, to discuss how the manufacturer is faring in the world’s busiest, most crucial market at present and what’s coming for the airframer in the future.  

An early presence 

ATR Singapore covers the whole Asia-Pacific region, starting west with India and reaching as far east as French Polynesia in the Pacific Ocean. “There are three main centers for ATR,” Kosowski said. “There is a Toulouse, there is Singapore for Asia Pacific, and there is Miami, 
for the Americas.”  This global presence ensures that the company can efficiently support thousands of airframes spread around the world.  

The airframer enjoyed early traction in the Asian market that led to the setup of the Singapore center in 1988, as Mr. Kosowski explained: “It’s mainly a support center and also a sales center. The sales team is in Singapore. We now support 500 aircraft in Asia-Pacific, and we have 80 customers.”  

A winning Formula?  

Over the past 44 years, the company’s type line-up hasn’t changed fundamentally. It’s composed of two models, the ATR42 and the ATR72, which are broadly similar, albeit not in terms of their length. Although gradual improvements have been implemented, the aircraft still look very similar to the way they did in 1981, so what changed?  

“The ATR has evolved a lot in 40 years,” Mr. Kosowski said. “It is not exactly the same aircraft. From the outside it looks the same, but inside, there have been major changes. The cockpit is now fully digital, so this was a major modification. The engines have also been improved. The interior has been completely redesigned.”  

But it’s not only the aircraft that has undergone significant changes. Over the years, the customer base has also transformed. The ATR was developed with short, regional sectors in mind, flying passengers between small-to-medium cities. Once the aircraft hit the Asian market, things changed, as Mr. Kosowski explained: “The type of customers have changed completely. Now we have guys like IndiGo, FedEx. I mean, it was really not the plan at the beginning, and also, the missions of the ATR have changed. So many things have changed in 40 years”.  

The adaptability of the aircraft and its low operating costs are key factors for understanding its continued success. “I like to present the ATR as a bit like a Swiss Army knife,” Kosowski said, highlighting its versatility and ruggedness. “For me, there are two main things. The first thing is the low operating costs of the ATR. We’ve always been lower than the competition. And the second thing is the versatility of the ATR. The ATR is a rugged aircraft that can fly anywhere and is easy to fly. But the operating costs are the major driver for me.”  

Challenging beginnings 

Although the company enjoys a substantial market share today, this was not the case when it first began. Indeed, it’s important to remember that, 40 years ago, the competitive landscape was a lot more crowded than it is today, with huge manufacturer diversity, as Mr. Kosowski recalled: 
 
“The biggest challenge we had from at the beginning, […] was that, at the time, there were many airframers competing. We had many competitors. When we arrived, there was the Fokker 50, there was the Q300, and a bit later there was the Saab 2000. There were a lot of turboprops.”  

Specifically, when the ATR72 arrived on the market, the Fokker 50 was its prime competitor, with similar capacities and capabilities, while also being fitted with the same engines (Pratt & Whitney PW125/127s).  

Additionally, the 1990s was a transformative period, which saw the rise of regional jets, first introduced by the Canadian airframer Bombardier and the iconic CRJ (Canadair Regional Jet). Due to public perception, especially in key US market, regional jets were favored, as they were deemed safer by passengers, who still associated turboprops with the piston-engine aircraft of old.  

While this perception is factually unjustified, it contributed to mount a challenge to ATR’s early growth, as Mr. Kosowski explained: 

“We had a lot of competition, and then after that we had the regional jet competition […] in the 2000s. In the 90s, it was a turboprop competition. Then they more or less all stopped production. 
And then the original jet, the first generation, the Embraer 145 and the first Bombardier […] stopped production. I mean, the ATR is the only survivor of this era.”  

Competitive landscape 

The regional airframer market shrunk dramatically towards the latter part of the 1990s, with Dornier, Fokker, Short, Bae/Avro, Embraer’s EMB120 and Saab having exited the passenger aircraft segment altogether. This meant that competition was now limited to regional jets (Embraer’s ERJ135/140/145, Bombardier’s CRJ200/700/900/1000) or Bombardier’s Q400, a 78-seater fast turboprop.  

When asked if this new competitive landscape translated into higher sales for the Toulouse-based airframer, Mr. Kosowski offered some interesting insights: 

“The thing about regional aviation that now I understand well after coming from Airbus is this. If you are in Ho Chi Minh City and you want to go to Los Angeles, what do you do? The first thing is, you’re going to fly. Nobody’s going to take a boat, so you’re going to fly […]. Only airlines offer the service. And the airlines fly widebody jets and the technology between Airbus and Boeing is more or less similar. There is no different concept. […] So, if you want to go from Ho Chi Minh City to L.A, it’s a widebody. […] You have no choice.  

“Now, if you look at regional aviation, we’re talking about a one-hour flight, let’s say 300 nautical miles/555 kilometers. If you need to travel from A to B for 555km, then it’s very different. You can do many things. You can take a car, you can take a bus, you can take a train, you can take a boat. Our competition, we feel, is not the other aircraft. Most of the time, it’s land transportation. In the world, we’ve calculated that only 3% of short distances trips […] are flown by air. So, the competition in regional aviation is the bus”.  

Returning to the specific case of the Q400, Mr. Kosowski said: “At the time when they stopped production, we had a 75% market share. If they come back, probably I don’t see why it would change. Initializing the assembly line is going to cost a lot of money. So, we already had a cost advantage. I mean, spending so much to restart the aircraft is not going to help their cost disadvantage.”  

This is further highlighted by the fact that “75% of the [ATR] customers are asking for lower operating costs,” while “25% are asking for lower emissions […]. Lower fuel consumption and lower CO2 emissions also mean lower taxes and many other advantages.’’  

Looking ahead: What is in the pipeline for ATR? 

One question we were very curious about is how ATR sees its long-term future in an ever-changing industry where sustainability, among other factors, is the name of the game. With 200 customers in 100 countries, ATR is busy modifying its existing platform to suit various short-term needs.  

The airframer is currently phasing in business class seats in a 2-1 abreast configuration, to address the burgeoning regional premium segment. Another much-awaited feature currently being implemented is the Starlink in-flight Wi-Fi capability.  

For the longer term, ATR is currently “very closely studying an aircraft called EVO, which has hybrid propulsion. The requirements that we have are very stringent because we really need a very substantial cost reduction […] so the engine is paramount, and we also need to lower emissions,” Kosowski said.  

He also added that the ATR, as it stands, is already the “lowest emitting aircraft because it has the lowest fuel consumption per seat” of its market segment. Technology maturity will determine when ATR transitions to this new propulsion system, as it needs to pass highly stringent safety tests before being put in commercial service. Mr. Kosowski forecasts its entry into service potentially around 2030.  

This will be accompanied by the introduction of a new airframe, more than 60 years after the first ATR flight, a testament to the quality of the original fuselage: “the airframe is an amazing feat of engineering. […]. It’s the lightest frame in the market per seat”.  

While ATR enjoys a solid market position, having posted a 1.2 billion USD revenue figure for 2024 with 56 aircraft orders (a +40% increase over 2023), its deliveries plateaued due to global supply chain problems affecting all airframers.  

Beyond those results, the company’s focus, as explained by Kosowski, is now very much focused on improving sustainability and connectivity, two pillars that ATR pioneered 40 years ago. Thanks to its unique market positioning, propulsion system and flexibility, the airframer from Toulouse might just be one step ahead of the competition in tackling the challenges of our time.   

Gavin’s previous roles have included development in British Airways, as well as consultancy projects for United Airlines, American Airlines, Qantas, and supporting the development of low-cost airlines to touristic destinations. Gavin has held a Board Position (CCO) at Portuguese airline SATA International and has been the advisor to the Board of Visit Portugal on air connectivity.    

As a professor, Gavin is responsible for programs spanning the commercial aspects of aviation and airports and works closely with Aeroclass on executive courses, bringing DMOs and airports together for tailored learning programs that support route development for destinations. 

The key to a successful plan and program is the setting of goals, and when developing goals for Air Services Development, the SMART objective strategy (Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Realistic, Time-bound) can be followed perfectly.  Objectives are the specific measures that can be used to determine whether or not you are successful in achieving the goals. 

With this in mind, what are the objectives of good route development? Is it just about attracting new routes, or protecting and managing existing services? Overall, the goals of each air service will be different based on a variety of factors including market size, existing services and route leakages, as well as the size and scope of the destination and its offer. 

In a nutshell, the following are outcomes of a successful air services program: 

• Retaining existing service – being in a position to ensure we keep the two-weekly or daily service, and ensure the route is served all year 

• Adding service to a new destination – seen by many in the industry as the catalyst of a successful air services development program: the ability to seek a new route to a new destination 

• Adding frequencies to current services – for tourism boards, it is not always the case that new flights can be offered by carriers. However, the ability to add more flights on the same route is a successful outcome and can be a way to grow inbound tourism numbers 

• Lowering fares through introducing a new competitive service – the rationale for tourism boards here being that the existing service is not supporting the development of certain segments/tourists to the destination as the prices on the route are aimed at a segment that is not conducive to new tourism development. Thus, the introduction of an LCC (low-cost) carrier to an existing route will bring fares down and potentially raise touristic disembarkations 

• Improving service reliability – this is not route development per se, but rather ensuring from an airport and destinations perspective that a more robust, operationally-focused strategy to bring a carrier that supports the vision of the airport, and ensures a reliable and competitive service 

• Upgrading aircraft – similar to enhancing frequencies, the key goal here is not based on more flights but rather on having more seats on offer, the rationale being that the route can withstand more offer at certain times of the year.  This could be a great way for destinations to look at tourism enhancement during the high-season periods – not about bringing new frequencies to a heavily-congested airports where slots are not available, but bringing more potential tourists on existing services if carriers are able to up-scale the aircraft 

• Increasing access to global networks – focusing on the airline-related ‘hub and spoke’ model, the importance of air services development under such an approach is to have the local airport connected to a larger, international-focused network.  For tourism boards this means that passengers can arrive to the destination on a ‘one-stop strategy’, particularly when the passengers from multiple markets may not warrant a direct service but will support enough people to serve the sector originating from the hub 

Building vs. retaining routes… Both are key 

Engaging key stakeholders and community members at the onset of such air service development efforts can help reinforce the understanding that route connectivity best works when seen as a community exercise and not just a matter in the hands of the airport.  Therefore, when a community is effectively engaged, expectations for ASD goals can be more realistic and buy-in can be increased across many stakeholders, not least the tourism board, chambers of commerce and private stakeholders.  

During this series of articles, we have often mentioned the importance of an Air Services committee, whereby its members are drawn from across the different stakeholders and one common theme is to work on a coordinated method to communicate with airlines, assisting in the ‘why we think you should fly to our airport/destination’ approach. 

Overall, the effectiveness of an air services program can be measured by knowing and understanding the objectives, measuring outcomes and attributing causation. It is that level of detail that is needed to ensure we showcase to our different stakeholders just how well our effort with connections is enhancing the airport/region/destination accordingly. 

But as highlighted in the points above, ‘the new carrier, the new city’ is not the only measure of success.  They are certainly the two benchmarks that drive government ministers to the press to showcase how well we are doing by building such new connections, but what is key is sustainable route development, not a newspaper headline.   

In essence, an airline looks at a new route across a three-year perspective. Year One is the start-up year, when most likely the carrier will have passengers (load-factor) but revenues (yield per seat) will be weak as they are contributing sales back to the route the start-up costs.  Year Two should start to look better, and as the route gains traction, less monies are needed on marketing and carriers can convert good passenger numbers to a higher yield gained per seat. By Year Three it should be full steam ahead, or if revenues are not in-line with projections, then it is time to re-think whether this route really works.  Therefore, a strong measure of air service success is consistency, and whether the route can stand on its own legs and not need further marketing incentives past Year Three. 

With this in mind, tourism boards and the airports authority must be honest with themselves when communicating air service success.  As wonderful as new routes may be, we must also ensure that continuation and growth of existing services are part of the success too in today’s highly competitive destination marketplace. 

Of course, they are not as ‘headline-grabbing’, but a good route development manager in an airport, and an aviation marketing manager at a DMO, should be as proud of the things that you can’t see as much as the big wins in air service, showcasing to stakeholders that the carrier decided to stay on the route, as well as expand by adding additional seats through larger aircraft. Thus, being in a position to both build and hold routes is crucial to the success of air services today, and is part of what we can call a ‘three-pronged approach’ to air service development: i), there is the need for maintenance and keeping what you already have; ii), expansion of what is already there; and, of course, iii), growth.  Overall, success in all three is much greater than just one singular victory. 

Community embrace 

Once the destination, airport, and broader stakeholders have established a stellar air services team, some might assume the task of route development becomes routine,balancing airline headquarters visits, air service speed-dating conferences, and regular calls with airline representatives from the airport’s home office. But truth be told, it is far from what we might call a ‘wash, rinse and repeat affair’. As each carrier will interact differently with the destination and the airport has its own unique circumstances, the need for data and informed insights takes on an even greater level of importance. 

In today’s world, destinations and airports have at their disposal both historic passenger data and future sentiment analysis on what people are looking at and booking. It is the blend of the past and the future data and such tools that make the community smarter, and hence make the airlines more engaged about route opportunities and how to market new service through a customized approach. Destinations can see who is flying and what success is looking like for carriers to benchmark airports/destinations through such insights. This can then be used proactively to build the switch or complimentary route story to have a consideration of our offer. In essence, it is a partnership, and the committee work on both the supply side, working with the airlines to look at where capacity is unserved or underserved, and where they can thicken routes, increase frequency, or drive a larger aircraft under the same route itself while still maintaining the same crew cost. 

So… the value explained 

It’s easy to overlook the great economic impact that one airline route can have on the local destination in the grander scale of all the routes and offer we have.  However, don’t underestimate the ‘think small to win big’ philosophy.  In terms of air services development, some may see one airline bringing a couple of flights a week to the destination as not that important, but the reality is far from this passive notion.  When you start looking at the detail of every single route, the value to the destination and local economy is quite unique.  

In essence, some may say that air services are actually a destination’s single most important asset, even more important than attractions, new hotel properties and good restaurants. Having a great offer is key, but without access, such services will suffer. Thus, the economic impact of air service development is vast. 

Overall, measuring air services is very much a subjective approach, but, saying that, we can try and provide some scientific proof.  Let’s imagine you source a new three-weekly service all year round to your destination.  What is the value? 

• Three-weekly flights, all year = 156 in-bound flights 

• Assuming a plane with 180 seats and 90% load-factor = 28,080 seats on the market, of which 25,272 were occupied 

• Assuming the passenger (tourist) spends €250 per day on accommodation, food, drinks, attractions and stays three days = €750 per passenger destination contribution, and a grand total direct economic impact of €18,954,000 from all seats. 

So, a three-weekly service can contribute to a spend of just under €19 million at the destination, and assuming now that the government taxes the touristic spend at an average of 20%, the total value of the flight to the treasury is just under €3.8 million.  That is a serious amount for the country/region, proving the worth of tourism as a key economic driver for destinations.  Air services development is a big business and that’s why it is so important for tourism boards to be at the table when negotiations are being made with carriers on why you should fly, thus driving the vision and supporting the carriers and reaping the financial benefits from both new and retained services. 

Through Air52, Koen assists airlines, airports and industry stakeholders with practical solutions for complex challenges, drawing on his extensive background in feasibility studies, fleet and network planning, and airline startups. He also contributes to IATA training courses and serves as faculty for Aviation MBA programs.     

The views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of AeroTime.     

Imagine being the CEO of an airline, staring at a financial report that shows your company earns just $7.00 per passenger. That’s right, in an industry with razor-thin margins, where a single route miscalculation can cost millions, the average airline makes less than the price of an airport sandwich on each traveler. Sound challenging? Welcome to the complex world of airline business models! 

For airline executives, this reality transforms routine decisions into high-stakes gambles. For industry professionals, understanding these models is crucial to navigating the competitive landscape. And for passengers? While most never think about it, these business models fundamentally shape everything from ticket prices to inflight service quality. 

But what exactly drives an airline’s strategic choices? Why do some carriers offer no-frills service at rock-bottom prices while others provide gourmet meals and lie-flat beds? Let’s decode the intricate business logic that keeps planes flying and explore why business models matter in this notoriously challenging industry. 

The $7.00 profit puzzle 

The strikingly low average profit per passenger ($7.00) isn’t a coincidence, it’s the culmination of several industry-wide challenges: 

• High operating costs: Fuel, labor, and aircraft maintenance consume enormous portions of revenue 

• Intense competition: Keeps fares low, especially with the rise of LCCs 

• Price sensitivity: Many passengers prioritize low fares above all other factors 

• Regulatory costs: Compliance with safety and security regulations is expensive 

• Cyclical nature: The industry is vulnerable to economic downturns and global events 

This economic environment explains why airlines constantly experiment with new revenue streams while seeking the delicate balance between competitive pricing and profitability. Have you ever wondered why that checked bag fee keeps creeping up? Now you know! 

Unpacking airline business models 

Before exploring specific models, it’s essential to understand what we mean by an “airline business model” and its role in broader airline management. 

An airline business model describes the means by which the airline derives profit from its business. It serves as a blueprint for the airline’s strategy and operations, providing a high-level view of how the airline creates, delivers, and captures value. 

Key components of an airline’s strategic framework include: 

• Business model: The overarching logic of how the airline generates revenue 

• Mission: Defines the core purpose of the airline – why it exists 

• Vision: Outlines the desired future state 

• Core values: Fundamental beliefs and principles guiding decisions 

• Goals: Specific, measurable targets 

• Strategy: Detailed plans to implement the business model 

The business model provides structure, while the mission, vision, and values create context. Goals quantify objectives, and strategy charts the path to success. 

The Business Model Canvas: A practical tool 

For aviation professionals, the Business Model Canvas offers a powerful framework for analysis. Developed by Alexander Osterwalder and Yves Pigneur, this tool encompasses nine key elements that help airlines visualize their entire business at a glance: 

• Customer segments: Who are you serving? (business travelers, leisure passengers, cargo shippers) 

• Value proposition: What value do you deliver to customers? (low fares, premium service, extensive network) 

• Channels: How do you reach customers? (booking platforms, travel agencies, mobile apps) 

• Revenue streams: How do you make money? (ticket sales, ancillary revenues, loyalty programs) 

• Key resources: What assets are essential? (aircraft, airport slots, skilled workforce) 

• Customer relationships: How do you interact with customers? (self-service, personalized service) 

• Key activities: What must you do well? (flight operations, maintenance, marketing) 

• Key partnerships: Who are your crucial partners? (alliances, airports, catering companies) 

• Cost structure: What are your major costs? (fuel, labor, aircraft leasing, airport fees) 

Next time you’re analyzing an airline’s strategy, try mapping it on this canvas – you might be surprised by the insights you uncover.  

Types of airline business models 

While each airline has unique characteristics, we can categorize airlines into several main business models based on their customer segments, value propositions, and cost structures: 

Network carriers 

Also known as full-service carriers, flag carriers, or major carriers, these airlines: 

• Serve all passenger market segments and often cargo 

• Utilize hub-and-spoke networks 

• Provide service with perceived uniqueness 

• Have a value-driven cost structure 

Think of Emirates, Lufthansa, and British Airways, carriers focused on network breadth and service quality rather than offering the lowest possible fares. 

Low-cost carriers (LCCs) 

These carriers focus on: 

• Serving price-sensitive business, leisure, and VFR (Visiting Friends and Relatives) passengers 

• Utilizing point-to-point networks 

• Making price their main differentiating feature 

• Maintaining a highly cost-driven operation 

Southwest Airlines pioneered this model, which has been widely adopted globally by carriers like easyJet and AirAsia. 

Ultra-low-cost carriers (ULCCs) 

Taking the LCC model further, ULCCs: 

• Target extremely price-sensitive leisure and VFR passengers 

• Operate point-to-point networks 

• Drive prices even lower as their primary competitive advantage 

• Maintain extremely cost-driven operations with minimal free amenities 

Frontier Airlines and Wizz Air exemplify this approach. Ever wondered why they charge for everything including water? It’s all part of the model.  

Regional and ACMI Carriers: A terminology note 

Here’s where terminology gets interesting. In North America, what are called “regional carriers” often function as ACMI (Aircraft, Crew, Maintenance, and Insurance) providers for larger airlines. These carriers typically: 

• Operate smaller aircraft on behalf of major airlines 

• Fly under the brand and flight codes of their major airline partners 

• Provide feeder traffic into major airline hubs 

• Have other airlines as customers 

Airlines like SkyWest, Republic Airways, and Mesa Airlines in the US operate under this model, even though they’re called “regional airlines” rather than ACMI providers. This differs from usage in other parts of the world, where “regional carrier” may refer to an independent airline serving a specific geographic region. 

Additional models 

The industry also includes specialized business models such as: 

• Charter airlines: Primarily serve tour operators with non-scheduled service 

• Dedicated ACMI/capacity providers: Outside North America, offering aircraft, crew, maintenance, and insurance to other airlines 

• Cargo airlines: Focusing exclusively on freight transportation 

• Hybrid airlines: Blending aspects of LCC and network carrier models such as JetBlue. This can also be done within an airline group (either within the same brand or using different brands). For example, the Singapore Airlines group comprises of the premium network carrier Singapore Airlines and the LCC Scoot.  

Global variations: How geography shapes business models 

Airline business models vary significantly by region, shaped by regulatory environments, geographic characteristics, and economic conditions: 

• North America: Dominated by network carriers and LCCs, with growing ULCC presence. Features extensive use of carriers operating as ACMI providers in the hub-and-spoke system. 

• Europe: Mix of network carriers, LCCs, and hybrid carriers, with stronger competition across models.   

• Asia-Pacific: Diverse landscape with network carriers, LCCs, and emerging ULCCs. Regional airlines play a significant role in connecting vast and diverse (island) territories. 

• Middle East: Prominence of global network carriers with growing LCC segment. The region’s geographic position enables global hub strategies. 

• Latin America: Increasing LCC market share alongside strong network carriers, with regional airlines connecting remote areas. 

• Africa: Mostly network carriers with a growing LCC presence, where regional airlines provide essential connectivity across the continent. 

Success stories: Business models in action 

Let’s look at how these models work in practice with some successful implementations: 

Southwest Airlines pioneered the LCC model, focusing on operational efficiency, consistent branding, and strong company culture. Its challenge? Maintaining the low-cost advantage as they grow larger than many competitors they originally disrupted. 

AirAsia successfully adapted the LCC model in Asia through a multi-country/multi-base strategy, strong ancillary revenue focus, and effective technology use. When you’re flying in Southeast Asia, notice how the airline has mastered cross-selling everything from hotels to activities. 

Lufthansa Group represents a sophisticated multi-brand strategy encompassing network, LCC, and regional carriers. The group’s diverse portfolio and strong hub network are strengths, while balancing different business models presents ongoing challenges. Just look at the tailfins within the group, each representing a different business model under one corporate umbrella. 

Challenges and future trends 

Each business model faces unique challenges, but several key trends are shaping the future for all: 

1. Sustainability-driven innovation: IATA’s “Fly Net Zero” commitment is driving significant changes across all airline business models. How will your favorite airline balance environmental responsibility with cost control? 

2. Personalization at scale: Airlines are moving toward hyper-personalization of services and offers. Next time you’re browsing airline offers and see eerily relevant suggestions, you’re seeing this trend in action. 

3. Multi-modal integration: Combining air travel with ground transportation for seamless journeys. Think about airlines selling train tickets as part of your journey – that’s already happening in Europe. 

4. Flexible capacity management: Adapting capacity to match volatile demand patterns, particularly relevant as we emerge from pandemic-era disruptions. 

5. Unbundling and rebundling: The continuing evolution of fare structures and product offerings that affects your booking experience regardless of which airline you choose. 

Looking ahead, while core business model categories will likely persist, we’ll see increasing hybridization and specialization as airlines adapt to changing market conditions and customer preferences. 

What does this mean for you? 

Understanding airline business models offers practical benefits whether you’re an industry professional or an informed traveler: 

• For airline managers: Guides strategic decision-making and resource allocation 

• For network planners: Informs route selection and capacity decisions 

• For marketing professionals: Shapes branding and customer segmentation strategies 

• For passengers: Helps you understand why airlines make the decisions they do 

The future of flight 

The fundamental question remains: How will these models adapt to balance the dual challenges of sustainability and profitability in an increasingly competitive global market? 

As aviation professionals, understanding and adapting these business models gives you the power to shape the future of air travel. The challenges are significant, but so are the opportunities for those who can innovate and adapt. 

The next time you book a flight, consider the complex business model working behind the scenes to make your journey possible. That $7.00 profit margin represents both the industry’s greatest challenge and its most remarkable achievement – bringing global connectivity to millions while navigating one of the world’s most demanding business environments. 

In this analysis I present the current situation, analyze connections and venture a look into the future. I will not only look at air freight, but also into freight and goods mobility from a more general perspective, i.e., other modes of transport, as this is important to understand the overall situation.

What freight quantities are transported and how far?

As with passenger mobility, cargo and freight transport can always be assigned to the four major mobility systems (modes of transport): sea freight, road freight, rail freight and air freight. Pipeline transport, which exists for gas and liquid hydrocarbons, is not considered in this text.

For a more detailed analysis, it is important to distinguish between two different parameters. On the one hand, many statistics look at the quantities of goods that are transported, often stated in millions of (metric) tons. If the distance is also considered in addition to the quantity, ton-kilometers (TKM) must be taken into account. 100,000 ton-kilometers are either a hundred tons of freight that are transported over a distance of 1,000 km, but it can also be just 100 tons that travel 10,000 km. If you look at it worldwide, you are usually dealing with billions or even trillions of TKM over the course of a year.

Sea freight accounts for around 80%-90% of global goods traffic. This is at least an estimate from UNCTAD (United Nations Conference on Trade and Development), which publishes various analyses and statistics. UNCTAD publications always point out that there are uncertainties in the published data due to survey deficiencies. In many countries, transport events, in particular on the road, are inadequately recorded and sometimes not recorded at all. Even for rail transport, there are sometimes only figures that have been estimated to a considerable extent because there is a lack of precise data collection and corresponding statistics. The most reliable data is available for freight shipping and air cargo.

For 2021, 11 billion tons of cargo (total goods loaded) are listed as cargo on ships. According to UNCTAD, sea freight volumes have grown by around 31% from 2010 (8.4 billion tons) to 2021, with slight declines during the pandemic earlier this decade.

In astudy conducted by the global logistics service provider DHL from April 2023, a total transport performance of around 60 trillion TKM by sea is assumed for the year 2010, which in return means that each ton of ship freight is transported an average of around 7,150 km, which withstands at least a certain plausibility check. The same source estimates 6.4 trillion TKM for global road freight in 2010, 4.3 trillion TKM for rail freight and 191 billion TKM for air cargo.

Daring outlook for 2050

Even though current figures for the global transport industry are difficult to determine, there are publications that dare to look ahead to 2050.

This graph first of all shows that the overall importance of sea freight is unlikely to change in the coming decades. It is interesting to note that similar growth rates are forecast for all four modes of transport. In relative terms, air freight is expected to grow the most, although the absolute figures show that the ton kilometers initially appear negligible compared to all other transport systems, especially sea freight. However, we will see later that this is a fallacy.

In connection with these forecasts, which expect growth of significantly more than 300% for all types of transport within 40 years, the fact that the respective infrastructure of the transport systems must be able to cope with this is particularly interesting and of great importance from a logistics point of view. Each system has its own hub infrastructure where transport processes begin and end (ports, freight and loading centers, train stations, airports), which must be expanded accordingly to be able to cope with the increase in volume.

For the land-based systems of rail and road, there is also a very complex and expensive path infrastructure between the hubs (rail lines, roads), which is not required for aviation and maritime shipping. The air between two airports and the oceans between ports are simply there and do not need to be built and never need any maintenance. Only in inland shipping, which is negligible in terms of volume, is such expenditure sometimes necessary.

It is already evident in many countries that increasing traffic volumes will not be possible on existing roads or railways. The corresponding construction projects are lengthy and are often delayed by years, sometimes decades. Previous projects to shift freight transport on a large scale from road to rail, for example, must be considered unsuccessful in many cases when realistically analyzed, even though billions of dollars of public funding have sometimes been invested in these projects​. Meeting the demand of the expected growth in air cargo requires airlines and airports to invest in the necessary infrastructure, but no new streets, highways or railroad tracks are necessary.

Economic importance of cargo and freight transport

If you just look at the figures for the total quantity of goods transported, you might get the impression that air freight has no significance in international goods traffic. However, if you look at what is being transported and what value the goods have, a completely different impression emerges. For Germany, very precise figures on the goods transported and their values ​​have been available for years. According to a recent publication by the Federal Agency for Civic Education (bpb), the volume of goods transported by air freight, based on the weight of all imports and exports, was around 1% in 2022. But this 1% of the volume of goods represents 35% of the value of the goods.

The average freight value per ton in 2022 was just under €153,000 for air cargo, while it was around €6,500 for road freight, around €2,500 for sea freight and just €2,000 for rail.

Both the average value of air freight and the air freight volume in Germany are increasing overall. Since 2000, the total volume has increased by 54% annually, and the value of goods has increased by 81% in the same period. The export of goods by air freight has been around 60% of the total volume for more than 20 years, and imports accordingly account for around 40%. Imported goods recently had significantly higher values ​​than exported goods. In 2022, it was just under €173,000 per ton for imports and just under €140,000 for exports. There are also considerable differences in the value of goods depending on the region and country. A ton of air cargo from Taiwan had an average value of more than 325,000 euros in 2022, only around 6% of this value was for air freight from Kenya, which, at just over 19,000 euros, was still many times higher than the average value of goods for all other transport systems.

Despite its small volume, air freight plays an important role, especially when high-value or perishable goods need to be transported. Microchips and other high-value electronics from Taiwan, spare parts for machinery all over the world that have to reach the recipient as quickly as possible or flowers from East Africa that many consumers do not want to miss even in the European winter are typical air freight.

For some observers, air freight is actually the backbone of the German export economy. Both the speed and the efficiency with which goods can be delivered to almost any point in the world at short notice play a decisive role here. In none of the three other transport systems are passenger and freight mobility linked as efficiently as in air freight.

Around half of all air cargo worldwide is transported as “belly freight” in the fuselage of passenger aircraft​. During the COVID-19 pandemic, this situation led to significant problems with the air freight transport that was still necessary, but most of the passenger traffic did not take place and the passenger aircraft’s cargo capacity was therefore also lacking​. In the meantime, air freight is simply loaded back onto many passenger flights depending on the available cargo space, and this trend is increasing. You do not always have to have your own cargo planes to fly air freight; this can be offered efficiently and cost-effectively even on routes where only a small volume of freight needs to be transported.

On the other hand, neither on the road, nor on the rails nor on ships do people and freight travel in the same vehicle on a regular basis these days. Until the 1980s, the Federal Railways in Germany still occasionally had combined train services in which freight wagons were attached to passenger trains. For the past 40 years, however, passenger and freight trains have been strictly separated.

Costs and efficiency of cargo transport

The most surprising finding for me when researching this article was the very low value of the goods, some of which are transported over very long distances. With less than €2,500 per ton in shipping and only around €2,000 by rail, the fundamental question arises as to what the costs of transport are in relation to the value.

It is extremely difficult to make general statements about the costs of the various transport options. In container shipping, the costs are calculated per container, so that in addition to the quantity to be shipped, the volume is also important, and the distance does not play a decisive role. Prices are currently quoted between US$1,500 and US$3,000 for 20- or 40-foot containers in intercontinental transport. For air freight, prices between US$4 and US$8 per kilogram apply for intercontinental transport. For Germany, DB Cargo’s current freight rates are around €202 per ton for rail freight with a payload of up to 21 tons in a freight wagon for a distance of 500 kilometers. For truck traffic in Germany, there is a study from 2022 in which the transport cost share of the product value of transported goods was already determined​. Depending on the group of goods transported, the proportions vary considerably; for stones and earth, comparatively cheap products, the transport costs are between 54% and 69%, depending on the distance, for fertilizers between 7% and 16%, and for postal goods between 1% and 4%. However, average statements and cross-system comparisons that include all traffic systems and distances simply cannot be made seriously.

Another important role in efficiency is the extent to which the individual modes of transport are utilized in regular operations. In principle, the utilization of transport vehicles decreases with increasing specialization and with decreasing distance to the end customer. A concrete mixer that transports concrete the last few kilometers to the construction site can only ever be empty on the return trip because it simply cannot take any other goods with it. The same applies to trucks that deliver to supermarkets or other retailers. At best, returns or packaging material that is no longer needed could be loaded. Overall, the utilization of the trucks that roll through Europe every day is often less than 50%. Freight trains with open bulk wagons that are completely empty of freight can also occasionally be observed, for example, when coke or iron ore has been delivered to a steel plant. Here, there is simply nothing that could be taken along on the return journey and transported in the corresponding wagons. Ships, especially container ships and also aircraft, are much more flexible in this regard and, when looked at holistically over certain routes, achieve utilization rates of the offered freight capacity of more than 70%. In addition, the e-commerce activities of Asian providers, who often send parcels addressed to end customers directly from Asia to Europe and the US, are causing additional demand for air freight capacities, which exceed the continuously increasing supply capacities since the pandemic and contribute to the high utilization of the air freight capacities on offer​.

Conclusion

Global freight traffic is essential for the economies of all countries trading with one another. Around 100 trillion ton-kilometers of transport are already carried out across all systems every year, primarily on sea-going vessels. Experts expect this to more than triple by 2050. These expected increases represent enormous challenges with regard to the necessary infrastructure, especially for the land-based road and rail systems. Adjustments to the node infrastructure must be made for all systems, but railroad tracks and roads also have to be expanded accordingly for trains and trucks, because in many countries the currently existing infrastructure is hardly able to cope with today’s traffic volumes, and planning and building new infrastructure takes decades. Having this in mind and considering the benefit of air cargo that absolutely no path infrastructure is necessary for aviation, the already forecasted growth until 2050 should make the industry optimistic. Efficient structures as well as continued endeavors towards greater sustainability might even lead to shifting more cargo from other transportation modes into planes.

As always and everywhere, future challenges require answers that do not come from an emotional point of view and do not emphasize our preferred personal ideology. Once again, rationality and an understanding of the mathematical and scientific relationships that underlie all mobility issues are required. The following applies to the transportation of goods worldwide: Mobility is expensive – both economically and ecologically.

The views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of AeroTime. 

Many are surprised when I tell them that most airlines in the world are not API (application programming interface) focused. It tends to be treated as “yet another function” within their PSS (passenger service system), rather than as a core business priority. When managed by the PSS, commercial conditions are common.  

Even more surprising is how many airlines don’t even have an API; they have not made any development with web services to enable communicating directly. This is a far cry from the narratives of the International Air Transport Association (IATA) initiatives NDC and ONE Order. 

I keep saying that it is critical that you control your distribution and that is why an API matters.   

But even for those airlines with an API it is astonishing how they lack the capability to exchange data and send it back to sellers. A seller needs the information on the ticket (or record of purchase) and updates to changes. As always it is the low-cost airlines (LCCs) who are the leaders, their direct sales matter most and therefore API capability is a must along with communication with other vendors and sellers. 

It is surprising that so many airlines say, “we let our PSS vendor manage our API like our NDC API”. I also find it remarkable that airlines talk about specific online travel agents and even name them in contracts. In the ever-changing world, where acquisitions are happening left right and center, it is a good move to avoid narrow definitions. 

It has been interesting to observe Ryanair going all in with all the partners it wants to work with. By implementing an API, the carrier fully controls who sells its content. But of course, there is a drawback – implementing an API is time consuming.   

The time to implement complex travel APIs does not just come from technical complexity, but also business process complexity. Let’s break this down. Obtaining commercial agreements can take weeks and months of emails, calls and in-person sessions to accomplish. And what about the actual engineering work? I checked with the folks at Trapi, who ran user research by interviewing 100+ travel API integration engineers, and the average timeline to integrate a typical travel API is 59 working days – which is 11.8 weeks, or roughly three months. 

And now you think you’re all good to go, right? Nope… the next step is potentially one of the most painful: certification. This can be weeks and months of more emails, calls and meetings for the API provider to review and ensure that the integration done by its customer is up to standard, and incorporates all the mandatory requirements set out by the API provider. 

Once you are live with an API, the journey has just begun, deepening integrations with more/new features or upgrading to newer versions of an API can be very time consuming and take a substantial ongoing percentage of your engineering teams’ bandwidth. 

The most important question for an airline to ask themselves is, are they an airline operations company or a travel tech company or both? Very few are both.  

For an IT shop you need architects, API engineers, product managers, technical customer success managers (CSMs) to build and truly scale an API first business. If you do not have the resources, you need to find vendors to work with, but it is critical to understand that you need to be involved and help the vendor. When you compare vendors, you need to understand their integration experience.  

If you are a seller like a TMC (Travel Management Company) or Online Agent, you need to prioritize what matters most. Does it make more sense to use an aggregator who offers multiple connections, such as, GDS (Global Distribution Systems), LCCs, NDC content? You need to compare the solutions commercially to direct connects that offer much better margins but involve a higher complexity.  

There are 2,000 + APIs in travel tech alone making it one of the most highly API dense industry verticals. There are APIs for flight search, booking, GDS connections, airline direct connections, wholesale flights, direct hotels, GDS hotels, wholesale hotels, cars, rail, ground transportation. Tools that you need to integrate, such as expense management and audit, tours, experiences, payment. And I have not covered them all. Then we also have APIs for automation. 

The GDS, in all fairness, has been an excellent tool to aggregate data and process that data but it was built on PNR-centric technology dating back the 1960s, 70s and 80s using teletype, EDIFACT and type B messaging. It is not cost effective and struggles with anything not defined in the PNR environment. The same goes for most of the PSS – messaging standards leave room for improvement. We are currently seeing the GDS competing with their own business and offering NDC solutions, but we see little or no modernization of messaging or PSS API communication.  

There is no doubt in my mind that we will eventually move towards a modern world of selling travel which will mean aggregation of content or rather facilitating how to find and point to content. In future we may not even need to aggregate, just use pointers. There is so much content I wish I could easily access, for example, comparing private charters to regular flights. To create a massive omni marketplace is a great ambition but maybe not realistic. I don’t know. But I do know that communicating using APIs is the way forward. 

Modernization may not only be about API first strategies, but also about the changes to search. Will the larger processing capabilities of data allow us to search better? I always question why we need to process all fares there are between a city pair and then filter the results. Shouldn’t filters be applied from the start? 

But let’s go back to the airline requirement, how do you get started?  

These are the questions you should ask yourself: 

• Do you want to distribute directly and to whom? Agents? Corporate customers? Leisure travelers? To decide on this, you need a business case.  

• Do you have an API or not? And do you have any constraints on using it? If you do you need to plan how you make changes. An example is if you are in a full content agreement, then you most probably don’t need direct distribution.  

You also need to plan internally (people, process, technology) to make an API first distribution happen. So many airlines I come across say “we just need an NDC schema API”. Sorry, that is a simple piece. The rest is far more challenging.  

The biggest hurdle with NDC is the inability of the airlines to scale their API products. They do not have the resources, the processes or the tech. I have heard medium-sized travel selling businesses telling me that there is a 12–18-month waitlist to get on their API and that doesn’t even include the actual integration timeline. What this means is that the airline de facto limits agency access.   

It is also very important to have a good think about why you want a direct distribution strategy. My immediate answer to that would be to lower costs and to sell content in the same way as on your website. You need to compare vendors and have a clear picture of the cost structure. You could argue that by competing with themselves the GDS should lower costs and improve content and processes but this you would need to evaluate.  

Regardless of direct distribution you need to identify which APIs you need to implement. I always recommend that you use an orchestrator (OMS – order management system) as it makes it so much easier.   

Gavin’s previous roles have included development in British Airways, as well as consultancy projects for United Airlines, American Airlines, Qantas, and supporting the development of low-cost airlines to touristic destinations. Gavin has held a Board Position (CCO) at Portuguese airline SATA International and has been the advisor to the Board of Visit Portugal on air connectivity.   

As a professor, Gavin is responsible for programs spanning the commercial aspects of aviation and airports and works closely with Aeroclass on executive courses, bringing DMOs and airports together for tailored learning programs that support route development for destinations. 

How should airports and tourism boards support the development of air services? This is a question that airport marketing personnel and national and regional government tourism agencies ask themselves every day.  In essence, is there a ‘one size fits all’ level of support that can be offered to all airlines, wherever they are located in the world? The answer is no. Each market will have an approach that fits with the rules of their country and business accordingly. 

So, what are we funding?  In the eyes of an airline, the potential to fly from A to B should be based on the vision that the passengers (and/or cargo) carried, will allow for the carrier to be profitable. Therefore, is it appropriate that airports and tourism authorities need to offer something on the basis that the carrier should be serving the route due to potential demand and then charging the passengers accordingly. 

In essence, it is not as easy as that.  Putting yourself in the shoes of the carrier, the vision of a new route is based on the premise that we may not start seeing route success until Year Three of the operation. The first year is where the airline will lose money, based on the start-up costs of serving something that is not well-known. Year Two is when we can see break-even, leading to the profit in the third season.  Thus, support is needed to help the airline take the risk, and work with its partners to share some of the risk in taking on the air service. 

What are we incentivising? 

The vision of support for an airline depends very much on which side of the table you are sitting.  With airports, it is clear: we can provide reductions per se on our charges/tariffs for landing and passenger services.  We can also negotiate a deal based on how many passengers you may bring us.  For an airport, the commercial success is based on a good blend of aviation and non-aviation revenues. At its most basic, airports charge airlines to land and charge their passengers for navigating through the terminals.  So, can we make money out of an airline relative to the passengers they bring us?  And, if we can incentivise airlines to bring even more passengers and we have a successful non-aviation offer (food and beverage outlets, shopping and entertainment, etc.), increases in passenger numbers and footfall mean we can potentially earn even more revenue.  Thus, what we offer on one side (discounts), an airport may get back on the other side of their business.  

According to the Airports Council, the non-aviation revenue is larger as a percentage of total revenues for an airport today than the revenue they make from charging airlines fees and charges. So, airports can support both discounts and volume deals as ways to bring even more hardware (planes) and passengers accordingly. 

For tourism boards, the vision is different.  Here, government agencies need to balance the vision of how much they need to spend to support the route and work with airlines on promotion campaigns. The more tourists we bring, the more we can see the multiplier effect of tourism.  In particular, those staying in a hotel or accommodation that is licensed and part of the fiscal system will contribute in two ways. They provide employment, which means such individuals contribute with social security and tax payments, and the employer will contribute to tax returns, too.  Also, the tourist will also spend money in the service economy, so any extra tourist has a financial benefit to the destination. 

What is an airport offering 

To ensure that airports look at enhancing plane movements and therefore potential passenger numbers, the business can look to give a level of discount on the carrier’s operational costs, in the hope that such growth and monies spent in the terminals is greater than the discount given to the carrier.  It is with this in mind that airports can offer airlines with a percentage discount on their published charges, in particular through reductions in the carrier’s landing fees, even to the extent of waiving all charges to zero for the first year of their operation. Such a measure may help to stimulate the carrier to add the service, and then airports may continue to offer further discounts in the following years (e.g., Years Two and Three respectively), where the discounts may be 75% and 50% of the fees for these consecutive years accordingly. 

Overall, then, the airport is taking a hit on their up-front revenues but hoping that new business and passenger growth will off-set such discounts, as a means of enhancing total revenues for the airport. 

The tourism board scenario 

Supporting an airline through a government agency, which is predominantly the case when talking about support from DMO’s or national tourism agencies, can be both complex and challenging in its execution. The reason is that governments, particularly in the context of the European Union, are very much governed by laws relating to state aid and what constitutes help to a private or public business.  Therefore, any such support as an incentive must be seen as a co-operative marketing campaign, whereby the agency contributes an amount to the airline’s promotion of the new route in question. For example, if a new route is to be developed between the UK and Portugal, and, the airline in question is British Airways, this carrier would develop a marketing campaign for a fixed amount and the tourism board of Portugal would support 50% of such.  The campaign is to present the route back in the source market, and this way, monies from governments have been placed in the execution of developing the demand potential, rather than not cover operational costs. 

Therefore, the way in which governments fund co-marketing campaigns can differ.  One such mechanism is for a DMO to announce the routes they would like airlines to consider on their agency site and then place a tender document to all those who are interested. This way the carrier will then address the route, build the campaign and submit as their response to tender.  

The alternative is for the DMOs to develop a matrix of investment for particular routes and seek to push such scenarios to carriers: ‘Would you be interested in developing this route? If so, this is the support for co-marketing that we can offer.’   

The difference between the full tender, where all airlines can participate, versus being more selective and stating what we need and why you are being asked to develop, is based on how the funding is being drawn down from the financial departments of governments.  Tenders are more akin to working with regional funding, and the specific targeted route campaigns happen mostly when central government departments are involved.  Providing marketing support to an airline for a specific route is essentially the same as when a DMO runs its own campaign to attract travelers from a particular source market. The only difference being, now the tourism board is not paying for the campaign but rather supporting an airline’s marketing. 

Knowing what to support and building a strategic matrix is key for the air services development success of a DMO.  In essence, we should not be paying for ‘all-flights’.  A tourism board must be more strategic in their vision and develop a strong understanding of what this route will do to benefit my destination.  Thus, when building any such air services incentive matrix, the following need to be considered: 

• Vision of the route – we only support routes of strategic inbound importance. It is not the job of the DMO to be worried about outbound passenger numbers, nor cargo. 

• Prioritise our markets – can we provide more marketing support for routes from these countries that we really need to stimulate?  Providing an amount of support for all markets is without vision, so we must rank, prioritise and then highlight that we can allocate more marketing monies to those that fit in with our strategic vision. 

• How many frequencies – what is the vision with the service? If we are focusing on weekend breaks, then we need a minimum of two per week, and if short breaks, we should have three per week.  Also, do we support more than a daily service?  The key consideration must be how we see the development of the tourism offer. What is a ‘fair’ level of weekly services? 

• Plane sizes: based on the premise that we want more tourists, should we incentivise more marketing monies for greater plane sizes, and can we have a minimum number of seats offered? Overall, a good incentive may offer support for planes from 100 to 180 seat; from 181 to 240 seats; and 241 seats and above. This allows for the different levels of narrow body and wide-body aircraft to be supported. 

• Do we support competition? If a route is already being served. should we also support a second carrier that is also interested in opening up? The benefit for the destination being that the first carrier may not be growing or looking to increase services, and in the meantime that route has scope for more passenger/tourist development. 

• Seasonality – finally, when do we need growth of potential tourists?  Should we present more marketing funds to airlines to develop routes during the low season (winter as an example), or should the focus be on extending the tourism season—by encouraging routes to start earlier or continue later into the year? 

In conclusion, monies offered to airlines for route development from airports and tourism boards are essentially seen as a way of forming a strong growth and development partnership and are not the reason we fly.  The business case for an airline deciding to fly a certain route is made up of many different factors that were outlined earlier in this series of articles, and generally any incentive given is no more than 5% of the operating costs of the route.  Thus, the network planning and the Chief Commercial Officer of an airline take a significant risk when deciding to fly a new service.   

The benefit of these partnership is that they offer a way for airports and tourism boards to work together within an air services committee to raise the profile of the question ‘why fly?’ – proving a robust business case with defined marketing support as a means of bringing re-assurance to the carrier that airports and tourist boards are with them on this decision to serve, and that it is in the interest of their destination/region/country to have them onboard.  For the carrier, it feels that they have a sense of place and a combined stakeholder agreement that their connection is bringing success for all.  A win-win, in every direction. 

Join us next month as Gavin looks at how destinations and airports measure the success of a route. In particular, understanding the value of our air services development programme, and what the new lift will bring to key stakeholders and private sector businesses, plus measuring the value of a passenger and the support we offer in marketing to secure the route, will all be discussed and critiqued. 

Renato spent 15 years as Senior Cabin Crew in the Middle East and has a lifelong passion for aviation history. He has also led the largest research project on Alberto Santos-Dumont and was condecorated by the Brazilian Air Force for efforts in aviation preservation.  

Renato is now working to shape the future of private aviation, connecting today’s innovators with tomorrow’s history. 

The views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of AeroTime.    

A Gulfstream G700 glides smoothly onto the runway at Dubai World Central, Al Maktoum International Airport (DWC). Moments later, the passengers are met with the epitome of modern private aviation, an ultra-exclusive Fixed-Base Operator (FBO), complete with avant-garde architecture, electric neo-punk luxury cars, and a dedicated concierge team.  

Inside, the hum of efficiency is underscored by the gentle notes of a grand piano. This is private aviation today, an ecosystem of precision, luxury, and seamless logistics.  

But how did we get here?  

Paris, 1901: The birth of the private aviation hub  

The story begins over a century ago when a young Brazilian pioneer, Alberto Santos-Dumont, piloted his dirigible above Paris, his unmistakable silhouette floating past the Eiffel Tower.  

But while the world watched in awe, Santos-Dumont knew that flight alone was not enough, his airships needed a home. Thus, in the lush greenery of Saint-Cloud, he built the world’s first aircraft hangar, a towering 30-meter-high structure designed not just as a shelter, but as a nerve center for innovation.  

On the gigantic white wooden structure, his dirigibles were maintained, refined, and prepared for their next feats. And it wasn’t just Santos-Dumont who recognized the importance of this space, his hangar became a gathering point for royals, scientists, and industrialists, including Samuel Langley, the American aviation pioneer. 

The hangar goes global: Monaco, London, and New York  

Fresh from his historic Eiffel Tower flight in 1901, Santos-Dumont’s next invitation came from the Prince of Monaco, eager to bring aviation to his principality.  

Soon after, an even grander hangar was erected on the most valuable land in the principality, where today, F1 cars race through the streets. His dirigible flights over the Mediterranean marked the birth of the aviation destiny of Monaco, a tradition that continues today with one of the world’s busiest heliports and private aviation markets. 

Santos-Dumont’s reputation soared beyond the Francophone world. He became the founding member of the Royal Aeroclub of England, and a gigantic ‘shed’ was commissioned at the Crystal Palace, a huge glasshouse structure in London’s Hyde Park, to house his airship.  

In time, this structure would give way to Britain’s first-ever dirigible, “Spencer’s N1”, a direct copy of Santos-Dumont’s designs.  

Across the Atlantic, another chapter was written. A group of investors, backed by Thomas Edison, brought Santos-Dumont to Long Island, where they funded a state-of-the-art hangar to house his N8 airship.  

On October 1, 1902, the first known airship race in history took place there.  

In less than two years, one man had built four hangars in four different countries. It was no longer just about flying, it was about establishing the infrastructure that would define private aviation for the next century.  

From wooden sheds to boutique aviation hubs  

Fast forward to today and the principles of the Santos-Dumont hangar remain at the heart of modern FBOs in Geneva, London, Miami, and beyond.  

During the post-World War Two boom, military airfields transitioned to civilian use, creating the demand for dedicated aviation service providers.  

The United States Civil Aeronautics Act of 1938 introduced a new term, Fixed-Base Operators (FBOs), to formalize aviation infrastructure. By the Jet Age of the 1950s, private aviation was no longer a dream, it was a necessity.  

Today’s private terminals blend high technology with extreme discretion, catering to executives, celebrities, and high-net-worth individuals who move at the speed of business.  

Miami-Opa Locka, Teterboro, London-Biggin Hill, Paris-Le Bourget, and Geneva-Cointrin, all, at their core, operate with the same vision Santos-Dumont had in 1901: aircraft should always be mission-ready, passengers should experience seamless entry, and exit maintenance should be efficient and discreet. 

Dumont’s close friends, Louis Cartier, Coco Chanel, Alice Roosevelt, Ricardo Soriano, and Prince Roland Bonaparte, would later become inspiration for today’s elite travelers.  

Their world was built around horse racetracks, casinos, and automotive circuits, the very same locations where private aviation thrives today.  

No matter how advanced our aircraft, technology, or digital booking systems become, the foundation remains the same.  

It all started with Santos-Dumont’s vision – gigantic rolling doors in Paris Saint Cloud. 

The views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of AeroTime.    

With an estimated 4.9 billion passengers worldwide in 2024, the number of air travelers has never been higher. Post-pandemic, the digitalization of air travel has also rapidly accelerated. According to a SITA survey, passengers are increasingly willing to adopt new technologies – and appreciate the resulting improvements, with 87% now expressing positive reviews about identity control and 84% about baggage collection.  

The growing technology acceptance is a much-needed opportunity for airlines to better handle the surge in passenger volume and streamline the travel experience. Integrating mobile scanning solutions is a simple yet highly effective way to boost both efficiency and passenger satisfaction. 

Traditional passenger service and luggage handling methods 

Airport operations are a complex dance of airline and terminal services – services that often benefit from automation. Many traditional workflows tie up staff and passengers at particular spots, creating bottlenecks. Among the worst offenders are check-in and various ID checks, from passports and boarding passes to luggage tags.  

Manual data entry is one of the major inefficiencies, especially at check-in. Too often, airport staff are stuck with manually transcribing passenger details from identification documents into the system. While this method does work, it is time-consuming and error-prone, with corrections taking up even more time. This can lead to long queues at check-in counters, frustrating travelers, and straining airport resources.  

Another common hurdle is the use of hardware barcode scanners for processing luggage tags and boarding passes. To begin with, hardware scanners are inflexible: They are bulky and frequently fixed in place. As environments like busy airports – or also retail stores – become more dynamic, they are shifting to mobile solutions.  

Dedicated scanners and check-in hardware are also costly to acquire and maintain. Despite this, they don’t deliver top performance – though the hardware may be specialized, it is often weak. In particular, they often fail to read damaged or poorly printed barcodes, causing delays and necessitating re-scans or manual verification.  

As the weaknesses of legacy methods become more obvious, they are driving demand for more efficient and user-friendly solutions in the check-in process and luggage handling.  

Mobile data capture: Fast, flexible, reliable  

Mobile scanning is transforming the airline industry with solutions that are versatile, speedy, and highly accurate. Passengers are rapidly adopting self-service options like scanning boarding passes or passports directly on their smartphones. They especially appreciate a seamless check-in that doesn’t involve kiosks or counter staff.  

Airport operators, too, are leveraging mobile scanning to optimize operations. For example, staff can use smartphones or tablets with barcode scanning to validate boarding passes quickly. Unlike fixed scan counters, this lets them move freely between gates, assisting passengers wherever they are. The results are faster boarding, less congestion at gates, and a smoother overall flow of passengers through the airport. 

In addition, MRZ (Machine Readable Zone) scanning enables staff to verify identification documents quickly and accurately such as passports or visas, reducing delays at security checkpoints. Similarly, barcode scanning modules can improve baggage handling, ensuring that luggage is correctly tagged and tracked in real-time. This minimizes errors and delays and is especially useful for gate-checking. 

Mobile scanning solutions have also simplified in-flight orders, payments, and inventory management. With accurate tracking of food and beverage supplies, they ensure the plane is always properly restocked, minimizing disruptions and delays.  

Mobile scanning solutions have another substantial advantage: Staff can rely on devices they already use, making the transition seamless and convenient.  

All in all, these solutions not only improve operational efficiency, but also help enhance the passenger experience. Thanks to shorter wait times, real-time baggage information, and less overall frustration, air travelers report higher satisfaction levels. 

Integration and data security considerations 

For the implementation of a mobile scanning solution to be successful, it has to seamlessly integrate with existing systems. This ensures smooth operations across various functions, including passenger services (e.g., check-in) and departure control systems (e.g., gate boarding). Standardized APIs and IATA protocols are used to achieve real-time synchronization of data across these systems, and new components must be compatible.  

To prevent disruptions, airlines often deploy these solutions gradually. They may start with simpler features, like verifying boarding passes, before moving to more complex tasks such as baggage tracking or passenger identification. 

Keeping passenger data safe is just as important as a seamless integration. A mobile scanning solution should therefore operate entirely offline. This ensures that all scans are processed locally on the end device rather than on third party servers. As a result, data stays securely on the device until it is transmitted to the backend system. The transmission itself can be further secured with end-to-end encryption and robust authentication protocols. 

Fully local processing has two additional advantages: Reliable scanning performance even in areas with poor or unstable network connectivity, and no unwanted tracking. 

From boarding pass validation to baggage tracking and document verification, mobile data capture empowers airports and airlines to streamline processes, improve accuracy, maintain security, and create a smoother, more enjoyable travel experience. 

The views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of AeroTime. 

Brexit’s aviation licensing crisis: a tale of unequal professional mobility 

On January 1, 2021, the United Kingdom officially left the European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), creating an immediate licensing crisis for pilots. At this point, UK pilots were no longer permitted to fly in Europe, while EU pilots retained the ability to fly UK-registered aircraft. This initial arrangement created an inherent professional advantage for EU pilots. 

A two-year transitional period followed, during which EU pilots could continue operating UK-registered aircraft, while UK pilots remained restricted from European operations. This transitional arrangement fundamentally disadvantaged UK pilots from the outset. 

On January 1, 2023, the transition period ended, and the UK ceased recognizing EU-issued licenses for UK-registered aircraft. However, a significant asymmetry persists: EU pilots can still extensively operate in the UK, particularly on EU-registered aircraft, due to continued operational and tax-related considerations by many airlines. UK-licensed pilots now face substantial barriers when seeking to operate aircraft registered in the European Union. The process of obtaining alternative licenses remains time-consuming and financially burdensome, with pilots required to undergo a lengthy and expensive license conversion. This acts as an active barrier to job opportunities, effectively degrading UK pilot licenses’ value and utility. 

Ironically, many UK pilots find it easier to secure employment in regions outside Europe, such as the Middle East, Asia, and parts of Africa, than within the European aviation market. 

The British Airline Pilots’ Association (BALPA) continues to highlight this professional inequity, actively advocating for a reciprocal agreement between the UK and EU for flight crew and engineer licenses. More than 3,500 UK pilots have signed a letter to the government urging them to address this post-Brexit licensing inequality. 

Brian Strutton, Acting BALPA General Secretary, emphasized the critical situation: “There are thousands of out-of-work pilots with highly respected UK licenses unable to take up positions with airlines registered in Europe but flying in and out of the UK.” 

The situation represents a stark professional imbalance, with UK pilots bearing the brunt of post-Brexit regulatory complications while EU pilots maintain considerable operational flexibility in the UK aviation market. 

Additionally, the European Commission has shown no immediate intention of resolving the licensing impasse, leaving pilots in a persistently challenging professional environment. 

Technological solutions: a path forward 

The current challenges faced by UK pilots have prompted a search for innovative technological solutions that can streamline licensing processes and enhance verification methods. Several emerging technologies are paving the way toward a more efficient aviation licensing landscape. 

Electronic Personnel Licenses (EPL): a global digital standard 

The International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) launched a groundbreaking tool on March 7, 2023, enabling states to verify Electronic Personnel Licenses (EPL). Countries like Australia, Brazil, and China have pioneered this approach, implementing EPL systems domestically with intentions to use them for international operations. 

The EPL system represents a revolutionary approach to digital licensing, offering unprecedented levels of verification and authentication. By creating a standardized digital framework, these countries are developing a more flexible and efficient pilot certification model that could potentially serve as a global standard. 

Blockchain-based license verification: A revolutionary approach 

SITA has developed an advanced blockchain-based solution for verifying pilot licenses, addressing critical credential verification challenges. Using Hyperledger Aries technology, the system enables peer-to-peer verification of digital credentials with remarkable security and efficiency.  

When a license is issued, the licensing authority creates a digital signature using a private key, with the corresponding public key securely stored on the blockchain. This approach allows inspectors to verify credentials through a mobile application, providing a robust and tamper-proof authentication method. 

The verification process is designed to be comprehensive and secure. The licenses themselves are not stored directly on the blockchain, but instead, the licensor issues an Electronic Personnel License (EPL) to the pilot as a verifiable credential stored in a phone wallet. This helps safeguard the pilot’s privacy while ensuring credential authenticity. 

Using the self-sovereign identity solution Hyperledger Aries, the system works almost entirely peer-to-peer between the license issuer, pilot, and verifier. When an inspector needs to verify a license, they can do so even without internet connectivity by checking the digital signature against locally stored public keys. 

Key advantages of this blockchain-based verification system include offline verification capabilities, enhanced privacy protection, rapid license issuance (taking days instead of weeks), reduced risk of credential fraud, and the elimination of physical credential management. 

The solution supports ICAO’s goal of developing an international standard for Electronic Personnel Licenses, with the potential to transform how pilot credentials are verified globally. After a successful proof of concept in 2020, SITA integrated its decentralized identity solution with the Civil Aviation Authority of China’s EPL system, demonstrating the practical viability of this innovative approach. 

Artificial Intelligence in aviation licensing 

The UK Civil Aviation Authority’s comprehensive AI strategy represents another transformative approach to addressing licensing challenges. Its three-pillar strategy focuses on horizon scanning, strategic direction setting, and internal capability development. AI technologies offer unprecedented potential in aviation licensing through automated equivalency assessments between different regulatory frameworks and intelligent tracking of pilot qualifications. 

Machine learning algorithms can facilitate more nuanced pathways for pilot licensing by reducing administrative burdens and creating more efficient verification processes. As these technologies evolve, they will play a crucial role in reshaping how pilot qualifications are assessed and recognized globally. 

Global trends and economic implications 

The post-Brexit licensing challenges faced by UK pilots are not isolated; they reflect broader global trends toward increasing complexity in professional credential recognition across aviation markets. Countries worldwide are grappling with modernizing their licensing systems while maintaining rigorous safety standards. 

Comparative analysis of global licensing approaches 

Comparative research reveals significant variations in aviation licensing approaches worldwide. For instance, while the United States Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has been somewhat resistant to digital transformation compared to emerging aviation markets like Singapore or the United Arab Emirates, which have been proactive in implementing technological solutions, there is an undeniable shift toward digitization across many jurisdictions. 

Economic impacts on workforce dynamics 

The technological disruption in aviation licensing extends beyond regulatory compliance; it represents a fundamental restructuring of workforce management within the sector. The complexity of post-Brexit licensing has created a fragmented talent market where pilots increasingly view their credentials as portable global assets driving demand for more flexible technology-enabled verification systems. 

Moreover, airlines now face increased operational complexity due to these changes. The need to maintain separate licensing frameworks creates substantial administrative burdens alongside potential financial implications that could reshape recruitment strategies significantly. 

A technological revolution ahead 

The current licensing challenges represent more than bureaucratic obstacles; they signal a profound technological transformation in how professional credentials are conceived, verified, and managed across international boundaries. As AI, blockchain technology, and digital verification methods continue to evolve, the aviation industry stands at the cusp of a significant paradigm shift. 

The solutions emerging from these challenges have the potential to create more transparent and efficient globally integrated professional certification systems that benefit pilots, airlines, and regulatory bodies alike. However, achieving this vision will require continued collaboration between regulatory authorities, technology providers, and industry stakeholders. 

By embracing innovation while maintaining commitments to safety and professional standards, the aviation industry can transform these challenges into opportunities for growth and international cooperation, ultimately paving the way for a more interconnected global aviation market. 

Addison’s focus is helping clients and colleagues improve their understanding of the industry through data models.  

You can follow his work at www.linkedin.com/in/aschonland and find out how AirInsight’s use of data improves the accuracy and efficiency of its consulting work, as described in an industry news blog at www.airinsight.com. 

The views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of AeroTime.    

Producing aircraft requires millions of parts from many vendors scattered across the globe. The concept of Toyota’s “just-in-time” production is now a standard within aerospace. Parts are expensive because raw materials are expensive. Roll into this cocktail the skills needed to make the parts and government oversight to ensure 100% safety. 

That’s the theory, anyway. The practical way this all comes together can be visualized as a grand orchestra with instruments across the globe. The conductor must ensure each instrument keeps the beat. The difference between music and cacophony is immediately apparent. 

With this mental image, we want to share something that displays this beat. Producing an aircraft may be one of the most complex industrial activities. 

Airbus 

Let’s start with Airbus. The chart lists deliveries from current programs. The green dashed line is the quarterly average. That average was pierced in 4Q18 but for the pandemic, Airbus has remained above it. 

• Notice that deliveries accelerated as Airbus moved from the CEO to the NEO program. The curves show how Airbus developed a rhythm and did exceptional work going into the pandemic. 2019 was an excellent year. 

• The pandemic wreaked havoc on commercial aviation, as we saw in 2020. 

• But by 2021, the rhythm was returning. Since then, Airbus has kept at it. 

Another view of this work effort can be seen below, tracking deliveries over the period. 

The chart shows acceleration, disruption, and recovery but also indicates delivery growth. To understand how impressive this performance is, consider Airbus ships parts across the Atlantic to Mobile from Europe. It also has Final Assembly Lines (FALs) in China and Canada. Considering all this, recovering “the beat” after the pandemic is remarkable. This is industrial music. 

Boeing 

Now, let’s look at Boeing. Boeing follows a similar path, accelerating its MAX deliveries. The red arrow highlights what we now recognize as the same symbol Airbus has above – “the beat.” 

• Even with the 787 and MAX challenges, Boeing moved quickly. However, its average is 54, compared to 105 for Airbus. 

• Boeing’s “music” hit its stride in 2018 compared to 2019 for Airbus. We guess we are not alone when we first saw it here. 

• Then came the perfect storm: a pandemic plus a grounding. 

• Boeing recovered fast. In 2022, we have “the beat” symbol again. 

• But 2023 went out of time, and 2024 has been cacophony. 

Here’s the same chart for Boeing as we have for Airbus above. 

It is crucial to consider that Boeing has one FAL for its MAX program, which delivers most of its aircraft, as the NEO program does for Airbus. This should simplify Boeing’s processes and mean a more easily managed supply chain. However, that supply chain has been stressed far more than the one at Airbus. 

Since these two OEMs are a duopoly, Boeing’s disruption impacts the entire supply chain. Indeed, some Boeing supply chain firms are now implementing layoffs to compensate for the company’s recent strike. Although the strike may be over, and Boeing may be making deliveries again, supply chain firms are still experiencing whiplash. 

Supply chain stress 

The supply chain’s sensitivity—the far-flung instruments that must keep the beat—is trying to recover. However, earlier production disruptions from the MAX grounding and 787 delivery pauses hamper this recovery. Supply chain firms don’t have the margins to absorb shocks as they might have without a pandemic. This is the outcome of the perfect storm. 

Having made this point, Airbus’ impressive recovery becomes clearer. Airbus likely benefited from a supply chain pivot away from Boeing. But that does not explain all of it. Airbus has made an impressive recovery from the pandemic. The supply chain needs Boeing to recover quickly because parts are not interchangeable. 

Boeing’s resilience 

This is where we need to reinforce the powerhouse Boeing’s Renton, Washington FAL represents. As we saw in 2018, Renton is capable of high production rates. Provided labor strife and the supply chain settle, Renton can churn out MAXs again. Currently, the FAA limit is 38/month, but a helpful inventory is almost ready to go. 

Here’s a chart to illustrate that point. The chart reflects MAX deliveries. The columns are the count of deliveries, and the curve is the days between the first flight and delivery. 

Note that deliveries were made within a month of the first flight in the early days of the MAX program. Airbus’s performance was roughly the same. Then came the grounding and complications from the pandemic—the days’ metric shows how Boeing managed to move the aging inventory. Indian customers took delivery of aircraft ordered by Chinese airlines as Boeing pivoted its sales efforts. 

As we close 4Q24, note Boeing has managed to drive down this metric again. The simplicity of one FAL helps Boeing recover. As it works through the various issues to get the MAX program back on track, another MAX FAL is coming on stream at Everett, Washington. Once the MAX 10 and MAX 7 are certified, we expect to see the days’ metric drop below 35 days. The beat will return to the appreciation of the entire aerospace silo. 

Through Air52, Koen assists airlines, airports and industry stakeholders with practical solutions for complex challenges, drawing on his extensive background in feasibility studies, fleet and network planning, and airline startups. He also contributes to IATA training courses and serves as faculty for Aviation MBA programs.     

The views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of AeroTime.    

Picture yourself navigating the gleaming corridors of Singapore’s Changi Airport (SIN), seamlessly transferring from your Lufthansa arrival to that crucial Singapore Airlines connection to Sydney. In this moment, you’re experiencing the invisible threads that bind the global aviation network together. This is the world of airline alliances, where fierce competitors transform into careful collaborators, all working to connect passengers across the globe. 

Evolution of global aviation networks 

Think about it, we have global hotel chains, worldwide retail brands, and international car manufacturers. Yet, despite aviation being the most global of industries, we’ve never seen a truly global airline emerge. Why? The answer lies in a complex web of regulations that strictly control where airlines can fly and effectively prevent international mergers. 

These restrictions led airlines to seek an innovative solution. In 1997, five visionary carriers – United Airlines, Lufthansa, Air Canada, Thai Airways, and Scandinavian Airlines – created Star Alliance, establishing a new way for airlines to achieve global reach while respecting national regulations. This revolutionary partnership model transformed aviation, spurring the creation of oneworld (1999) and SkyTeam (2000). 

Over the years, Star Alliance has grown to become the largest global alliance with 26 member airlines, followed by SkyTeam with 19 members and oneworld with 13 full members, with Oman Air joining in June 2025 and Fiji Airways transitioning to full membership by late 2025. Together, these alliances carry more than 40% of the world’s passengers. 

Alliance objectives: Beyond code sharing 

While alliances build upon interline and codeshare agreements, they represent a deeper level of cooperation aimed at four fundamental strategic goals: 

• Network expansion through coordinated schedules and routes 

• Revenue enhancement through joint sales and marketing initiatives 

• Enhanced customer experience through seamless travel integration 

• Competitive positioning against other alliance groups 

Benefits and challenges of alliance membership for airlines 

Alliance membership offers participating airlines several significant advantages. Airlines that join alliances gain access to new markets without the need to launch their own routes, while also enhancing their revenue through network feed from partner carriers. Cost reduction is achieved through the sharing of airport facilities between airline partners, and airlines within alliances enjoy a strengthened competitive position in the global market. The sharing of technology and best practices among alliance partner airlines further enhances operational capabilities. 

However, being an airline member of an alliance comes with its own set of challenges that carriers must navigate. Partner airlines face reduced operational flexibility and must work through complex decision-making processes involving multiple airline stakeholders. Airline members often encounter potential conflicts between their individual strategies and alliance objectives. The financial aspect presents another hurdle, with both integration costs and ongoing alliance membership fees to consider. Partner airlines must maintain compliance with alliance standards and are required to offer perks to other airlines’ frequent flyers. Additionally, airlines risk brand dilution when alliance partner carriers maintain lower service standards. 

When Alliances face turbulence 

Despite the fact that alliance members do work closely together, it must be important to realize that they do not share cost, revenue, or profits in any way. To the contrary, each member airline is actively competing against their alliance partners.  

This explains why airlines increasingly pursue partnerships outside alliance structures. Notable examples include: 

• oneworld member Qatar Airways’ equity stake and ever-expanding codeshare agreement with SkyTeam’s LATAM, demonstrating cross-alliance cooperation 

• The Qantas-Emirates partnership, extended until 2028, where Qantas maintains its strategic partnership with a non-alliance carrier and a direct competitor of Qatar Airways, a fellow oneworld member 

• Star Alliance member Singapore Airlines’ expanding partnership with SkyTeam member Garuda Indonesia, including increased flight frequencies and a joint venture on routes between Singapore and Indonesia 

These arrangements offer more flexibility than traditional alliance membership while still providing network benefits and present a more positive business case to the airlines involved than staying within the alliance. 

The passenger perspective 

From a traveler’s viewpoint, flying with alliance member airlines brings both advantages and frustrations. Frequent flyers experience the convenience of seamless connections across multiple carriers and enjoy elite benefits like Star Alliance Gold or oneworld Emerald status, which grants them priority treatment regardless of which member airline they fly. The ability to access shared lounges worldwide adds another layer of comfort to their journey. 

However, travelers also face distinct challenges when flying alliance carriers. Some find themselves paying higher fares on routes where alliance dominance has reduced competition. When service issues arise during multi-carrier journeys, passengers often struggle to determine which airline should address their concerns. While alliances promise consistent service levels, travelers frequently notice significant variations in their experience, particularly when switching between carriers from different regions or service cultures. 

The business of alliance membership 

Joining an alliance isn’t merely about sharing flight codes – it’s a multi-million dollar commitment. Initial joining fees can range from $10-30 million depending on airline size and market position. Annual membership fees typically run in the millions, yet the revenue benefits often outweigh these costs substantially. For instance, Star Alliance reports that connecting traffic between members can generate additional annual revenues of $100-200 million for a mid-sized carrier. 

However, membership isn’t just about writing checks. Airlines must undergo rigorous operational audits, align their service standards, and integrate complex IT systems. This process typically takes 18-24 months and requires significant investment in staff training, technology upgrades, and facility modifications. 

The independent operators 

Not all airlines see alliance membership as essential. Low-cost carriers typically avoid alliances due to their focus on point-to-point traffic and simpler operating models. Their business strategy emphasizes operational efficiency and cost control, making the financial and operational commitments of alliance membership often counterproductive to their core business model. The integration costs, membership fees, and required service standardization would conflict with their lean operating philosophy and autonomous decision-making approach. 

Some network carriers strategically choose independence to maintain flexibility in partner selection and market development. This is particularly evident in the Gulf region, where carriers like Emirates and Etihad Airways have opted to focus on individual codeshare partnerships. Emirates values its ability to react in the marketplace without needing consensus from alliance partners, while both carriers have expanded their networks through bilateral agreements that provide access to hundreds of additional destinations. 

Notable examples of successful independent full-service carriers include Emirates, which has access to more than 300 extra destinations through codeshare partnerships, and Etihad Airways, which has built a network of more than 350 destinations through strategic partnerships with airlines like China Eastern, ITA Airways, Lufthansa, and SWISS. 

Future horizons 

As aviation enters a new era, alliances are evolving beyond traditional air travel. Star Alliance’s partnership with Deutsche Bahn and Swiss Federal Railways demonstrates how alliances are embracing intermodal transportation, allowing passengers to book combined air-rail journeys while addressing both convenience and sustainability concerns. 
 
Digital integration, virtual interlining, and changing consumer preferences continue reshaping alliance roles. The next frontier may lie in deeper integration of artificial intelligence for network optimization, enhanced passenger services, and improved operational efficiency. As airlines navigate post-pandemic recovery and environmental challenges, alliances provide a platform for shared innovation and resource optimization that individual carriers might struggle to achieve alone. 

Follow Dr. Klaus Radermacher’s LinkedIn newsletter “Think. Mobility. Differently.” for regular insights on mobility concepts and transportation systems.    

The views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of AeroTime. 

A key feature that has made aviation successful in recent decades is the fact that the energy required to transport hundreds of passengers and their luggage over thousands, sometimes tens of thousands of kilometers, could be transported within the aircraft. This is quite different from the transportation on a very restricted grid, e.g., a rail network, where the limitation of use of the rail network allows to provide the required propulsion energy “on the move” via an electric grid. 

The unprecedented flexibility of aviation, which does not require any “path infrastructure” between the “node infrastructure” of airports, requires propulsion energy to compensate for this, which is overall appropriate in terms of volume and weight (mass), and which is also made available time-efficiently within the respective aircraft. 

As of today, almost all aviation is based on kerosene or jet fuel. At this point, there is no need to further differentiate between particular specifications of jet fuel which might be used depending on weather conditions, etc. The energy-related chemical and physical properties of the different variants are very much the same. 

What amounts of energy are we talking about? 

Energy is usually measured in Joule (J), whereas 1 J is equal to 1 Watt (W) of electrical energy over the time of 1 second, 1 J = 1 Ws. A more prominent and more practical unit for electrical energy is Kilowatt hours (kWh), which means that we are looking at 1,000 Watts and 3,600 seconds in 1 kWh. A simple calculation shows us that 1 kWh is equivalent to 3,600,000 Joule, or 3.6 MJ (Megajoule). Of course, 1 kWh is also the amount of energy provided when we have an electrical power of 2,000 Watts used for over 30 minutes, or 10 kW for just 6 minutes. 

In physics, the energy of 1 Joule is also equal to 1 Newton meter (Nm), Newton (N) being the physical unit for force. In the past, units like pound-force, pond, and kilopond (kp) were commonly used, but for the sake of simplicity, we stick to the SI system in this article; conversion tables for the other units can be found in​. For physics enthusiasts: 1 Newton is equal to the “force required to accelerate 1 kilogram of mass at a speed of 1 meter per second squared” (1 m s-2). (Promise: No more physics formulas in this text from now on.) Put in simpler terms: The thrust needed for a plane to fly is dependent on the plane’s overall mass during the acceleration phase, its speed, the air density, which differs with the altitude and several other factors.  

Jet fuel and its properties 

The widely used Jet A-1 fuel contains 43.15 MJ of energy per kg. At a temperature of 15 degrees Celsius, the specific weight is 0.804 kg per liter​.  

Large widebody aircraft serving intercontinental routes have a fuel capacity of more than 100 tons. (A330neo: 111 tons, B787-9 Dreamliner: 101 tons, A380 up to 250 tons). 1 (metric) ton of Jet-A1 fuel stands for exactly 1,000 kg of mass, for 1.244 m³ (1,244 liters) in required tank volume and for 43.15 GJ (Gigajoule) of energy. Converted into electrical energy, this is as much as 11.99 MWh (Megawatt hours).  

With this particular knowledge about kerosene’s energy content, we can look at potential alternatives. 

Energy storage capacity of batteries 

When will there be airplanes that can be operated on electric power generated sustainably, i.e., wind -, solar -, or waterpower? This is a question that has been asked quite frequently. Although there is a lot of research going on, my perception is that it will be a very long time before we see this happen, at least when looking at the mass market of long-distance aircraft seating hundreds of passengers. For niche markets, i.e. small planes and short distances like island hopping, solutions are likely to be available much faster. 

Although incredible performance improvements have been achieved for batteries in recent years, we have to admit that we are currently looking at battery technology where 1 kWh of energy requires a battery that weighs anywhere between 3 and 6 kilograms.  

Large electric vehicles with 100 kWh battery packs easily have a battery weight of 600 kg or more to be moved around at all times. The rather large difference in weight is determined by another important property of the battery: how fast can it provide the energy stored in it; how fast can it discharge the energy it contains?  

For high power consumption, for example during the takeoff phase of a flight, enormous power is required and in a conventional jet this is provided simply by burning much more fuel per second compared to the fuel burn during cruise flight. Using battery power, it would have to be guaranteed that the batteries are capable of discharging sufficient amounts of energy and, unfortunately, there is a reciprocal relation: the more electrical power per unit of weight that can be stored in a battery (energy density), the lower the maximum power output of the battery (power density) and vice versa. These specific properties of batteries are shown in so-called Ragone plots.

But anyway, let us assume we can store 1 kWh of energy in a battery of 4 kg. For the almost 12 MWh of energy in 1 ton of Jet-A1, this would require 12,000 times 4 kg, 48 tons! If the aircraft requires 60 tons or even 100 tons of kerosene to transport 300 or 400 passengers over distances of 10,000km or in extreme long-haul flights, even 14,000km, we are already in a range of 2,880 tons or 4,800 tons of battery weight. Simply impossible.  

But wait. This is where the physics expert will step in. There is another aspect to be considered: engine efficiency.  

Today’s jet engines have an overall efficiency of 30% to 40%, while electric engines have around 90%. Mechanical engineering efficiency describes a ratio between the overall energy put into a system, and the amount of useful energy for the specific purpose, in the case of a jet engine this is generating thrust. To spoil the story right away, 100% efficiency cannot be achieved in any system, this would be a perpetuum mobile, impossible to construct as the laws of thermodynamics teach us. If we assume that our jet engine has an efficiency of 35%, this means that only about 15 GJ of energy are being used for thrust generation out of each ton of burned fuel. Besides the thrust an enormous amount of heat is generated when burning the fuel and, unfortunately, most of the energy goes into that.  

By the way, this is not a specific deficiency in jet engines but is true for all combustion engines. As a matter of fact, hardly any engines have been trimmed towards efficiency to the extent of jet engines. 

Back to our comparison with batteries: If we had comparable electric engines which could utilize 90% of the input energy, 4 kg of battery would provide 0.9 kWh (3.24 MJ) usable energy. To get 15 GJ of usable energy from 1 ton of input energy, we would still need a little more than 18.5 tons of batteries. For long-haul flights with 60 tons or even 100 tons of fuel in the tanks at takeoff, we would be in the range of 1.110 or even 1.850 tons just for the batteries. Still not feasible.  

And at least 1 other engineering aspect needs to be understood. Today’s aircraft have larger maximum takeoff weights than maximum landing weights. This is the reason it is sometimes necessary to dump fuel in emergency situations when the plane needs to land shortly after takeoff. The weight of batteries does not change depending on whether they are charged or discharged.  

How much stronger would gears have to be, and how much longer would runways have to be if a plane would not reduce a large amount of its takeoff weight during the flight? 

Hydrogen  

Hydrogen is often considered a clean source of energy for the future, which is only true if the hydrogen itself is generated with sustainable energy. Just like hydrocarbons, i.e., kerosene, hydrogen can be burned together with oxygen from the air and the emission gas is only water vapor. Many engines that currently burn hydrocarbons could even run on hydrogen without major changes. This sounds really good, but we also have to look at some chemical and physical properties of hydrogen before we become too enthusiastic.  

Hydrogen, the lightest and smallest of all elements in the periodic table of elements, has the highest energy density relative to its mass but, unfortunately, an incredibly low energy density per volume. 

1 kilogram of hydrogen stands for about 120 MJ, almost three times as much as kerosene. But, since the hydrogen is gaseous at normal conditions and only becomes liquid at minus 253 degrees Celsius, on kg of hydrogen under normal conditions (20° C, 1 bar) requires more than 11 m³ (11.000 liters) of volume. So, gaseous hydrogen provides 120 MJ of energy in the same volume, where kerosene gives us 590,360 MJ.  

To get a reasonable energy yield from hydrogen, the energy density must be increased, not in terms of mass but in terms of volume. This can be achieved by liquefaction by cooling to minus 253 °C or by compressing the gas. Cooling to such extreme temperatures is difficult and requires enormous amounts of energy. Compression is used, for example, in hydrogen cars and trucks. Hydrogen is compressed to up to 700 bars (10,153 psi), sometimes even more, which requires tanks suitable for such pressures. Steel is already used for such tanks, which makes them very heavy. Research is being conducted into tanks made of much lighter composite materials (carbon fiber reinforced plastics, CFRP, CRP), which will certainly lead to lighter tanks in the future. For the use of such hydrogen tanks in aviation, however, it must also be taken into account that at cruising altitude the outside air pressure is much lower than on the ground and the tanks would have to be designed accordingly.  

But, even at 700 bar pressure, only 40 kg of hydrogen fit into 1 m³, so 1 kg still requires the same volume (12.5 l) as 20kg of kerosene. If we consider the storage volume required, hydrogen provides us with 120 MJ of energy even at 700 bars, whereas kerosene (uncompressed) provides us with more than 860 MJ. Even if we ignore all the technical and structural aspects that would have to be solved when burning hydrogen in aircraft, we will need fuel tanks that are around seven times larger and that would also have to withstand pressures of 700 bars and more. 

Any other alternatives? 

Fuel cells are also considered a “clean” energy source for mobility and are used by some vehicles, especially buses. However, the “primary raw energy” of fuel cells is also hydrogen, so the same problems with energy density and pressure that have already been described are at stake here. 

So far, no real alternative has been found for the immense amounts of energy that large aircraft require on long-haul flights. And that does not mean that flying as such is energy inefficient. In all considerations, we must always take into account that transporting 300 passengers over a distance of 10,000 kilometers means a total transport volume of 3,000,000 passenger kilometers (PKM). 400 passengers over 14,000 kilometers results in 5,600,000 PKM. Such volumes that aircraft handle during a single flight exceed the lifetime transport performance of other mobility vehicles such as cars, or require weeks, months or years for buses and trains.  

Our considerations and calculations show very clearly that sustainable aviation fuels (SAFs) are absolutely necessary for more sustainable aviation and that their provision requires significantly greater efforts.  

For further information on SAFs, I gladly refer to my column in AeroTime published in October 2024.

The views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of AeroTime.     

The terms in square brackets throughout this article represent the Four Main Concepts of the Synergy Management Approach (SMA): 

1. Synergistic Leadership 

2. Resource Empowerment 

3. Risk Mastery 

4. Performance Excellence 

When the sky isn’t the limit 

In the final days of December 2024, the aviation world faced two heartbreaking tragedies: Azerbaijan Airlines Flight 8243 on December 25 and Jeju Air Flight 2216 on December 29. Beyond the technical details in their preliminary reports, these accidents involved a painful reality—families forever changed and questions left unanswered. 

Aviation has made extraordinary strides in safety, yet these incidents remind us that progress doesn’t mean perfection. How is it that, despite cutting-edge technology and rigorous protocols, such accidents still happen? The answer often lies not in what we have but in how we use it. Over 25 years, I’ve observed that it’s not just the systems or the procedures that fail—it’s the environment in which they operate. 

Recognizing the ‘management gap’ 

The disconnect is what I call the ‘management gap’. It’s not the absence of frameworks like Safety Management Systems (SMS) or Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs), those are often well-designed and robust. Instead, the issue arises when these frameworks are not effectively woven into the daily fabric of operations. 

“Knowledge is of no value unless you put it into practice.” 
—Anton Chekhov 

This quote resonates deeply. Even the most carefully constructed processes can falter if the leadership approach fails to create a culture where safety isn’t just a task, it’s a value. When safety becomes a checklist instead of a mindset, vulnerabilities emerge, and risks begin to multiply unnoticed. 

The Synergy Management Approach (SMA) 

Seeing these blind spots repeated across organizations led me to develop the Synergy Management Approach (SMA), a framework I present in my book, ‘How to Manage Aviation Safety’. The SMA is built on a critical insight: while human error is often cited as the cause of accidents, human adaptability is just as often the reason disasters are averted. 

Embracing human adaptability through neuroscience 

A key principle of SMA, drawn from Safety-II thinking, is that human adaptability isn’t just an error source, it’s an asset. This aligns with neuroleadership research, which shows that when people feel psychologically safe, the brain’s prefrontal cortex is more engaged, enabling higher cognitive functioning and creative problem-solving. Conversely, in toxic or high-threat workplaces, the amygdala triggers ‘fight-or-flight’ responses that diminish strategic thinking and collaboration. 

Rather than treating adaptability as a weakness to be managed, the SMA embraces it as a strength. Drawing on these insights, the approach emphasizes creating environments where individuals can think critically and adapt effectively under pressure [Resource Empowerment]. 

Take US Airways Flight 1549 as an example. Captain Sullenberger’s Hudson River landing was a masterclass in judgment under pressure, achieved not by following a step-by-step manual but by adapting skillfully when no script fitted the situation. The SMA provides the tools to support such decision-making while maintaining the necessary structure and consistency of aviation safety systems. 

“Courage is grace under pressure.” 
—Ernest Hemingway 

In aviation, resilience is born in environments where adaptability is nurtured, not stifled by blame culture. If we truly want to manage safety effectively, we must balance the structure of standardization with the agility of human judgment, ensuring psychological safety is a cornerstone of leadership [Synergistic Leadership]. 

Safety doesn’t fly solo 

As aviation operations grow more complex, the ability to manage safety effectively becomes not just a necessity but a competitive advantage. The question isn’t whether we have enough procedures or technologies, it’s whether we possess the leadership mindset and management capability to ensure these resources work in synergy. 

The upshot? Airlines that excel in leadership-driven safety often reap tangible benefits: reduced downtime, stronger brand loyalty, and a reputation that attracts both customers and top talent. 

“All you need in this life is ignorance and confidence; then success is sure.” 
—Mark Twain 

Twain’s quip reminds us that blind confidence can be dangerous in a field as unforgiving as aviation. But here’s the crucial part: implementing SMA isn’t about revolutionizing your entire safety system overnight. It’s about understanding how management decisions impact safety outcomes and making small, strategic adjustments that compound over time—turning safety from a department into a dynamic, organization-wide capability [Risk Mastery]. 

Grounded lessons 

Even industry giants are not immune to the consequences of the management gap. Boeing’s waves of production issues, culminating in the two tragic 737 MAX accidents of 2018 and 2019, are a stark reminder of how overlooking safety as a strategic priority can lead to catastrophic outcomes. At one point, Boeing’s stock plummeted by over $60 billion, a direct consequence of eroded trust and systemic vulnerabilities. 

But Boeing’s ongoing recovery also shows a path forward. Through transparent communication, strategic recalibration, and a renewed focus on holistic accountability [Performance Excellence], the planemaker has begun to rebuild both its reputation and its operational resilience. These lessons underscore the critical need for leadership not only to enforce compliance but also actively foster environments where safety is integrated into every decision—a core tenet of the Synergy Management Approach (SMA). 

A vision for future articles 

So, where do we go from here? 

• Refine Leadership Models: Proactive leaders foster trust, clarity, and open dialogue, turning safety from a compliance task into a collective mission. 

• Cultivate Adaptive Teams: Embrace Safety-II thinking to tap into the human capacity for innovation, especially when standard protocols fall short. 

• Adopt Incremental Changes: Small, well-targeted adjustments can strengthen your safety ecosystem and generate measurable returns, both operationally and financially. 

We’ll explore these themes in-depth in upcoming articles, using real-world success stories and actionable strategies to show how bridging the management gap can deliver sustained, profitable, and resilient aviation operations.  

Gavin’s previous roles have included development in British Airways, as well as consultancy projects for United Airlines, American Airlines, Qantas, and supporting the development of low-cost airlines to touristic destinations. Gavin has held a Board Position (CCO) at Portuguese airline SATA International and has been the advisor to the Board of Visit Portugal on air connectivity.  

As a Professor, Gavin is responsible for programs spanning the commercial aspects of aviation and airports and works closely with Aeroclass on executive courses bringing DMOs and airports together for tailored learning programs that support route development for destinations. 

Pre-COVID, the vision of airlines was clear – focusing on corporate travel. The monies made from high-yielding business tickets were the reason airlines could offer lower fares at the back of the plane. To support the business traveler, airlines had invested large sums of money in cabin configurations with a lot of fixed first, business, and premium economy seating. The game of travel was all about the corporate and how to offer a business experience that allows passengers to sleep and continue to work while traveling in the air. 

However, the pick-up in corporate travel during 2023 was nothing like that noticed with leisure. So, airlines are now having to look differently at what their leisure proposition really is. The phrase ‘business class’ has become synonymous with premium travel, but many people flying in business are actually on leisure trips; they are tourists.  The benefits of flexible ticketing and being able to work on board, both key benefits of business class, are not so important in the eyes of a tourist when considering spending x thousand more to travel. In essence, airlines need to take a closer look at what is the real leisure travel experience and what they need from an airline? 

Adapting to the realities of the leisure traveler 

With this in mind, two interesting cases have unfolded with airlines and the development of the leisure proposition. First, the Lufthansa Group took time straight after COVID to look at itself and realize that the leisure story was very strong.  The airline quickly developed a subsidiary that would take a mix of short-haul and long-haul fleets from the parent, and brought Eurowings Discover to market, which then became Discover Airlines. Based out of Frankfurt and Munich, the carrier is operating a mixed strategy. Selling tickets via the normal global distribution system (GDS) channels and using Lufthansa’s platforms as well as being open and working with the German tour operators and travel trade, which are packaging-up holidays, and then buying a set of ‘blocked seats’ on a Discover flight to Mombasa or Zanzibar, respectively. This allows the airline to work on a traditional seat-only product, as well as being available to the travel trade.  

Emirates has finally introduced a Premium Economy product on its A380 and B777 fleets. Some may say they are very late to the game, with the likes of British Airways (BA) developing its World Traveller Plus premium economy product back in the 2000s. The rationale for BA in those days was to have a product available when the corporates were looking to downgrade, or down trade; i.e., going from business to economy is a big drop in seat comfort. For corporate travelers looking to save money, premium economy was the alternative. Fast forward 20 years and the story is very different. Emirates is looking at those leisure travelers, tourists who want to treat themselves with a little more comfort on their long-haul holiday once a year.  

Overall, leisure is still very strong and, as destinations seek a new type of tourist, the change in how airlines look at leisure is a great opportunity for route and market development strategies. Tourism boards should be noticing the ‘premium’ travel trends and pushing these insights to airlines when developing the ‘why you should fly’ business cases. The opportunity for the airline to get a higher yield per traveler is also beneficial as per seat sales are key for the commercial director of the carrier. 

New aircraft that can fly further 

The Airbus A321XLR has proven a remarkably popular choice with airlines since it was announced at the 2019 Paris Air Show. It is the longest-range variant of the A321neo family, with a range of 4,700 nautical miles, making the single aisle (3×3 seat layout) on par with widebodies (3x3x3 seat layout) when it comes to the range the plane can offer. So, an A321XLR can fly up to 10 hours, similar to an A330, the difference being we can fly with such distances with 160 people rather than 360 people. 

So, who has been busy with orders? Well, Indian low-cost carrier IndiGo is one of Airbus’ biggest customers and has placed a massive order with the European manufacturer for its game-changing aircraft. At the 2023 Paris Air Show, IndiGo placed a record-breaking order for the A320 family aircraft. And from Mumbai and Delhi, 10 hours of flying brings most of Europe and Asia in the range of IndiGo, and opening routes to 2nd and 3rd tier cities with such services. For sure, the benefit of flying direct on less-dense routes with fewer seats makes for perfect airline economics. What is not good, however, is when we have too many seats and need heavy discounting to sell. The A321XLR will not have this problem. 

Moving to the United States, as the largest airline in the world by fleet size, American Airlines (AA) has a massive appetite for this new aircraft. AA did not waste any time when it came to the A321XLR, placing an order for 50 aircraft of the type just a few days after it was announced in Paris five years ago. The order remains one of the most significant for the single aisle aircraft today. The vision for AA is to use such aircraft on European routes and look at developing smaller European cities from the carrier’s key Philadelphia hub. Presently, Philadelphia is a key base for connecting to Europe, with the B787 (Dreamliner aircraft) so taking smaller aircraft will allow AA to open many new 2^nd and 3^rd tier destinations across Europe. 

Then there is a very large order from private equity firm Indigo Partners. While Indigo Partners is not an airline, it holds a controlling stake in a number of pretty big players in the industry, namely JetSMART, Frontier Airlines, and Wizz Air. Wizz will see a large proportion of the order, which comes in at just under 50 aircraft, coming its way. and it is assumed that many will be placed at the airline’s Abu Dhabi base and the newly opened Riyadh airport project. Much like IndiGo, Indigo Partners’ vision with Wizz is to compete against the new Indian-hub model and bring Europe and Asia to the Middle East. And, on September 10, 2024, Wizz announced that it will operate the A321XLR from the carrier’s Abu Dhabi and Jeddah bases. Abu Dhabi will be connected to Milan, and Jeddah to London, both of which have around eight hours of one-way flying time. 

So, what does all of this mean for tourism and tourist boards? Well, it is quite clear. They can start fishing in markets that they have not been to before. Why? Because the traditional widebody was either too big for most airports or had too many seats that would mean less yield for the airline, resulting in a reluctance to serve certain destinations. But that will now soon change.  

A premium experience with a single aisle 

One of the great innovations offered by the A321XLR is its ability as a single-aisle aircraft to make long-haul flights while also providing a premium service at the same level as that enjoyed in widebody models, such as the A330s and A350s in Spanish flag carrier Iberia’s fleet.  

Most airlines are looking at an interior of around 180 seats arranged in a business and economy cabin configuration and will include various improvements that offer greater comfort to passengers, such as larger overhead compartments, which can store up to 60 % more carry-on suitcases. Business class is based on 14 individual window seats with direct access to the aisle. In addition, the seats will offer maximum comfort, with a ‘full flat’ seat that converts into a bed, offering a strong sleep component with flights up to 10 hours. 

So, the benefit of working longer journeys with the new aircraft ties in very well with the premium leisure traveler and the ability to travel to new destinations and therefore pick up source markets that were not normally on the airline’s radar. A win-win for all. Airlines need new destinations and destinations want to work with new source markets. It is the changing of the hardware that is instrumental in secondary and third cities in Europe looking to get direct flights from the US or for South-east Asian destinations to be working much stronger with the Indian outbound market. 

For sure, we have great new opportunities with a 10-hour narrowbody aircraft. But as you can imagine, many airports and destinations will be knocking on the airlines’ doors to be on the initial route development list. Destinations need to prepare their business case, and present to the carriers, why should you pick us? In particular, the basis that premium leisure to the destination is very strong, and this works to the strengths and economics of the new plane… ‘less is more’. The airline can carry fewer people, buy high yielding, from a market that would not have been possible before. A game-changer for destinations. 

Join us next month as Gavin looks at how destinations and airports can build better business cases to the airlines, as well as bringing key insights into how you manage incentives and marketing support to carriers when supporting new routes. 

The views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of AeroTime.    

In the mid-2000s low-cost carriers (LCCs) proved that they were able to lower distribution costs dramatically. They did not sell through the Global Distribution System (GDS), an intermediary used by traditional airlines, and they also unbundled baggage and seats selling them as ancillaries instead. This is what I call a direct connect, airlines selling directly and not through an intermediary.   

Some TMCs (Travel Management Companies) and OTAs (Online Travel Agents) started adding content from direct channels, although this did come at a high cost, but the majority chose to sell GDS content only.   

Traditional network airlines quickly realized that not only was their cost for distribution astronomical, but they were also unable to unbundle ancillaries. They simply didn’t have an Application Programming Interface (API) system and technology to sell ancillaries.  

As a response to the LCC revolution network airlines turned to the International Air Transport Association (IATA) to introduce a new messaging standard that was named NDC, New Distribution Capability, in 2012. The idea was to create a standard that could manage large-scale messaging and that could replace the old EDIFACT standard that had been used since the 60s. Working groups for airlines were established to create these new standards based on Extensible Markup Language (XML).  

Travel agent distribution was (and still is) primarily structured on the GDS. Historically the GDS provided agents with all the products they needed for invoicing, accounting, reporting, and selling. As a result, most systems used today by agents are still very GDS-centric and this is the reason why we end up with challenging workarounds, such as passive segments to make it a “GDS look-alike”.  

NDC is not used on any airline websites. It is a standard for travel sellers such as OTAs and TMCs. To explain it in a simplistic way, NDC is an XML standard that the airline can choose to use for its direct connect (API).  

Sadly, a lot of important topics were lost on the standards journey, like how vital it is for an airline to control its API (this can be managed internally or by outsourcing to companies that provide this service). Controlling your API allows you to implement your direct connect.  

Personally, I think that the biggest mistake in the history of NDC (and don’t get me wrong, I believe in standards) was that the working groups were not open to all and there were entry barriers for startups. I think that the best way to drive real change for global standards is to make it publicly available and open for all to contribute.  

The majority of LCCs have not converted their APIs into an NDC standard. They find that the large OTAs and TMC integrate their content anyway or they use aggregators. Aggregators gather all the content from GDSs, from LCCs, from literally any source. It is an easy way for a seller to get hold of all the content that they want to sell without taking on the challenge of integration themselves.  

To counter aggregators, GDSs have started to offer their own NDC API connections. You can say that they are in essence competing with their own GDS business. But of course, it is an expected move if you wish to control airline distribution. What is interesting, however, is that we are not seeing the GDSs particularly interested in integrating LCCs direct connects. Confusing? You bet! 

Why is it that many TMCs have stated that they are unwilling to integrate NDC connections? The easy answer is that if your entire operation is set up to use the GDS, i.e., invoicing, reporting, accounting, duty of care is automatically linked to the GDS, meaning it is no easy task to modernize your infrastructure and processes.  

On top of that, travel agents receive incentives to book in the GDS and various conditions apply to their contracts should they not meet volume expectations. If a seller wants to sell content outside the GDS it requires effort. As well as having to implement APIs or use aggregators they also need to adjust their internal systems.  

Is NDC content any different than LCC content? The answer is no. But traditionally TMCs have not integrated many LCCs until now. LCC content is typically more lucrative for the OTA and TMC than NDC content. You can argue that many corporates do not fly LCCs, but that is changing. Four out of 10 of the world’s largest airlines are LCCs (Ryanair, Southwest, IndiGo and easyJet).  

But should a travel seller sell the content the customer is asking for? And if they don’t, is their competitor selling that content?  

During the past 12 years that NDCs have been utilized, LCCs have plodded along and become the drivers of all the cool stuff and development we have seen so far. They started offering products like “cancel for any reason”. Essentially, they were the drivers behind customer experience and showed everyone that there are many ways for an airline to make money.  

A few network airlines decided to just get on with it and move away from Passenger Name Record (PNR) centricity and use Order Management Systems (OMS) just like any other retailer. Typically, an OMS offers an agency portal, an NDC API, a corporate SME portal, or any type of portal for any channel you wish to sell to. For more information about this, you can read my previous AeroTime column ‘Airline Retailing – where to begin’.  

As a sideline discussion I am often asked what benefits an LCC has by integrating their API to sellers and, to me, it is a no brainer. They can grow sales and control who the sellers are (unlike GDS sales where they don’t have control). It has been interesting to follow the battle between Ryanair and agents where we are seeing the Irish LCC taking control of the distribution.  

So, this brings us to the important question, should you opt for an NDC or not? The short answer is – it depends. 

Here is a checklist of things you’ll need to consider when it comes to an NDC strategy. 

• If you are in a full-content agreement you need to exit 

• Do you control your own API?  

• Is there a cost involved with using your API?  

• Who are your travel sellers?  

• Are your travel sellers on GDS?  

• What is the percentage of GDS sales? 

• What are your competitors doing in this space, are you a follower or a leader?  

• Do you need to convert your API to an NDC standard? Are the agents asking you to do that or will it be good enough with just an API?  

Once you have figured this out you are ready for your business case. If you have an API, you should only convert it to NDC if your important sellers are asking you to do so. If you are implementing an API, then why not follow the standard anyway. 

NDC is not a magic wand. It is only a very small part of the distribution puzzle. Your retail strategy is far more important as well as how you can improve the customer experience.  

Hopefully, I have helped to clear up some of the misconceptions when it comes to NDCs and made you think about whether you need to convert your API to an NDC standard or not. There are companies out there that can help you with this or help you with an API without the need to convert it. 

The views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of AeroTime.       

The aviation sector is currently experiencing a significant shift as the adoption of Internet of Things (IoT) technology revolutionizes aircraft maintenance and operations. This transformation is fundamentally changing how airlines oversee their fleets, improve operational efficiency, and elevate the overall passenger experience. By leveraging interconnected sensors, big data analytics and real-time monitoring systems, the aviation sector is achieving unprecedented levels of efficiency, safety and cost-effectiveness. 

IoT in aviation refers to the network of interconnected devices and sensors that collect and transmit data about various aspects of aircraft operations. These devices monitor everything from engine performance and fuel consumption to cabin temperature and baggage location. The data collected is then analysed using sophisticated algorithms and artificial intelligence to provide actionable insights for pilots, maintenance crews and airline management. 

The implementation of IoT in aviation is addressing several key challenges faced by the industry. It enhances maintenance efficiency by enabling predictive maintenance, which reduces unexpected breakdowns and optimizes scheduled maintenance. Real-time data analysis helps in optimizing flight paths and reducing fuel consumption, thereby improving fuel efficiency. Continuous monitoring of aircraft systems allows for early detection of potential issues, significantly enhancing safety. IoT also enables personalized services and improved baggage handling, improving the passenger experience. Furthermore, data-driven decision-making leads to better resource allocation and reduced delays, improving overall operational efficiency. 

Airbus Skywise: A data-driven revolution 

Since 2017, Airbus has been pioneering IoT implementation with its Skywise platform. In 2022, Airbus launched Skywise Core [X], enhancing the platform’s capabilities with three incremental packages: X¹, X² and X³. These packages provide airlines with advanced tools for data navigation, operational management and predictive analytics. 

The system integrates data from aircraft sensors, airline operations, maintenance records and weather reports to provide a holistic view of aircraft performance. The platform’s predictive maintenance capabilities, such as S.PM+ and S.HM, allow airlines to anticipate component failures and schedule maintenance proactively. 

With over 10,000 aircraft now connected, Skywise has gained significant traction. Airlines like Korean Air have implemented S.PM+ and S.HM for their entire Airbus fleet, while Vueling has integrated Skywise Predictive Maintenance into its fleet maintenance digitalization process. 

Skywise Core [X] offers advanced features such as ‘what if?’ scenario simulations, real-time data pushing to external systems, and artificial intelligence capabilities. These tools empower users to perform more advanced actions on their data and make data-driven decisions, helping airlines optimize operations, reduce costs and improve reliability, while contributing to global efforts to reduce the aviation industry’s carbon footprint. 

Boeing’s Predictive Maintenance: Anticipating issues before they arise 

Boeing has developed a suite of IoT-powered predictive maintenance tools through its Boeing AnalytX platform, which utilizes advanced analytics and machine learning algorithms to analyse vast amounts of data from aircraft sensors, maintenance records and historical performance data. This platform enhances situational awareness and operational efficiency for airlines. 

Boeing’s approach emphasizes component health monitoring, using onboard sensors to continuously track critical components. This proactive monitoring allows for timely replacements, reducing unscheduled maintenance events and improving fleet reliability. The system also facilitates fleet optimization by enabling airlines to compare individual aircraft performance against fleet-wide benchmarks. 

Multiple airlines have implemented Boeing AnalytX solutions. For instance, Qantas uses the Airplane Health Management (AHM) system to take predictive maintenance actions that enhance efficiency and lower operating costs. Japan Airlines has also signed agreements for AHM, improving its maintenance operations through customized analytics. United Airlines has expanded its use of AHM across its entire fleet, enabling predictive alerts for up to 500 aircraft. 

Additionally, Lufthansa Technik’s adoption of Boeing’s predictive maintenance tools has led to significant reductions in unscheduled maintenance events. By leveraging these advanced analytics capabilities, airlines can optimize their operations and improve overall reliability while reducing costs. 

Rolls-Royce’s Intelligent Engine: Power plants that think 

Rolls-Royce has embraced IoT with its Intelligent Engine concept, which treats each engine as a connected digital entity capable of learning and optimizing performance. This innovative approach employs continuous health monitoring to track engine parameters in real time, allowing for the early detection of anomalies and the use of predictive maintenance. 

The Intelligent Engine utilizes advanced data analytics and machine learning to adapt to changing flight conditions, enabling real-time adjustments to enhance efficiency and reliability. By integrating seamlessly with airline and manufacturer systems, it facilitates comprehensive analysis and support. 

A key feature of this concept is the use of digital twins, virtual replicas of engines that simulate real-world conditions for testing and optimization. This technology allows Rolls-Royce to predict maintenance needs accurately, improving overall engine reliability and fuel efficiency. 

With the ability to process over 70 trillion data points annually from its fleet, the Intelligent Engine enhances decision-making and operational performance. The impact has been significant, with airlines reporting substantial improvements in reliability and cost savings, positioning Rolls-Royce as a leader in the future of aviation technology. 

GE Aviation’s FlightPulse: Empowering pilots with data 
 

GE Aviation has implemented a unique approach to IoT with its FlightPulse app, specifically designed for pilots. This mobile application empowers pilots by providing them with access to big data analytics, enabling them to optimize their flying techniques for enhanced fuel efficiency and safety. 

FlightPulse offers personalized analytics, allowing pilots to review their individual flight data in a secure environment. They can compare their performance against company averages and best practices, gaining insights into fuel efficiency and receiving recommendations for fuel-saving techniques based on historical data and current conditions. The app also enhances safety by helping pilots to identify potential risks and adjust their flying methods accordingly. 

AirAsia has adopted FlightPulse, contributing to its ongoing efforts to improve fuel efficiency, with initiatives aimed at achieving up to 0.75% savings through various operational enhancements. Meanwhile, Qantas has reported a 15% increase in the adoption of fuel-saving procedures since implementing FlightPulse, which has also helped the airline to avoid 5.71 million kg of carbon emissions in its first year of use. 

By facilitating a culture of continuous improvement among flight crews, FlightPulse not only drives operational excellence but also contributes to reducing carbon emissions in aviation. 

Delta Air Lines’ RFID Baggage Tracking: Enhancing the passenger experience 
 

While much of the focus on IoT in aviation has been on aircraft performance and maintenance, Delta Air Lines has demonstrated its potential to enhance the passenger experience through its innovative RFID baggage tracking system. This system uses Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) tags embedded in baggage labels to track the location of each piece of luggage throughout its journey. 

Delta’s RFID implementation allows for real-time tracking, enabling passengers to monitor their baggage via the Fly Delta app. This technology boasts a remarkable 99.9% success rate in tracking bags, significantly reducing mishandling rates by 13% compared to traditional barcode scanning methods. 

The automated tracking process has streamlined baggage handling operations, contributing to a 10% improvement in baggage loading rates and a 21% reduction in bag-handling injury rates. Additionally, the transparency provided by real-time tracking enhances the overall passenger experience by offering them push notifications and a map view of their bag’s journey from check-in to the baggage carousel. 

Delta invested $50 million to roll out RFID technology across 344 airports worldwide, making it a leader in the industry for baggage tracking innovation. This revision ensures accuracy regarding Delta’s RFID system’s success rates, investment and specific improvements, while enhancing clarity and flow. 

The future of IoT in aviation 
 

As these examples demonstrate, IoT technology is already having a transformative impact on the aviation industry. However, this is just the beginning. Future developments in IoT for aviation could include enhanced weather prediction capabilities that lead to more accurate and localized forecasting, improving flight planning and reducing weather-related disruptions. 

Additionally, IoT-enabled aircraft cabins could adjust lighting, temperature and entertainment options based on individual passenger preferences, further enhancing the passenger experience. Advanced IoT systems could also optimize aircraft operations for minimal environmental impact, supporting the industry’s sustainability goals. These innovations will not only improve operational efficiency but also contribute to a more personalized and enjoyable travel experience for passengers. 

While the potential of IoT in aviation is immense, there are challenges that still need to be addressed. Data security is a primary concern, as the vast amount of data collected by IoT systems must be protected from cyber threats. The industry needs to develop common standards for IoT implementation to ensure interoperability across different systems and manufacturers. IoT systems must meet stringent aviation safety regulations and certification requirements. 

There is also a skills gap that needs to be addressed, as the industry needs to develop a workforce capable of implementing and managing these sophisticated IoT systems. 

The Internet of Things is ushering in a new era of smart aviation where predictive maintenance, fuel optimization, enhanced passenger experiences and operational efficiencies are becoming commonplace. As technology evolves further, we can anticipate even more innovative applications that will continue improving air travel safety, efficiency and sustainability. The sky is no longer the limit: it only marks the beginning of an interconnected aviation ecosystem poised for remarkable advancements. 

Through Air52, Koen assists airlines, airports and industry stakeholders with practical solutions for complex challenges, drawing on his extensive background in feasibility studies, fleet and network planning, and airline startups. He also contributes to IATA training courses and serves as faculty for Aviation MBA programs.    

The views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of AeroTime.   

Picture yourself as an airline CEO facing a crucial decision: your airline is planning to expand operations across Asia. Should you build a powerful hub operation, focusing traffic through a major airport? Or would a network focusing on point-to-point connections better serve your markets? This choice – determining your airline’s network type – may fundamentally shape the future fortunes of your carrier. 

Let’s explore the key network types, their strategic implications, and the critical factors to their success. 

Evolution of airline networks 

In aviation’s early days, technological limitations, aircraft range and size forced airlines into point-to-point and line operations. However, as aircraft capabilities evolved and deregulation took hold, carriers developed more sophisticated network strategies. The U.S. Airline Deregulation Act of 1978 sparked a revolution in network thinking, leading to the emergence of hub-and-spoke as the dominant model for most legacy carriers. 

Understanding network types 

In aviation, we identify three distinct network types: the line network, the grid network and the hub-and-spoke network. 

Line Network: Connecting cities in a line, with most city pairings served by at least one stop. Despite the name, the line network may actually look like a circle, triangle or any other geometrical shape. Early Pan Am routes across the Pacific exemplified this approach, though this network type is rarely the base of modern passenger networks. 

Hub-and-Spoke Network: Creating city pairings by connecting the cities (the spokes) via a centralized airport (the hub), akin to the hub and spokes of a wheel. These networks provide direct flights between the hub and the spokes and connect spokes to each other with a connection in the hub. Examples of hub-and-spoke networks can be found across the globe, such as Emirates’ global network connecting through Dubai and Lufthansa’s dual-hub network using Frankfurt and Munich, facilitating efficient connections. 

Grid Network: Connecting cities with direct flights. Despite the name, the network does not necessarily look like a grid, with each city connected to multiple other cities. On a map, a grid network may look very similar, even identical, to a hub-and-spoke network. However, in a grid network, connections are not prioritized and may not be offered at all. In this case, the centralized airport is not referred to as a hub, but rather as a focus city.  

Southwest Airlines demonstrates this model effectively across its U.S. network. In Europe, Ryanair, the continent’s largest (low-cost) carrier, employs a point-to-point model, focusing on direct flights between city pairings without relying on connecting traffic. 

As is so often the case in aviation, combinations may offer the best solution. Hybrid airline networks are those which combine two or even all three of the above network types. And even though many airlines have a hybrid network in the purest sense of the word – for example, combining a line network as part of a hub-and-spoke network – the use of hybrid network is usually reserved for airlines where each of the network types make up a significant share of their operations.  

In other cases, we usually refer to the airlines’ most dominant network. As an example, British Airways has a large hub-and-spoke network using London Heathrow as its hub, but also grid network operation from Gatwick, focusing mostly on point-to-point leisure routes. 

The power of hub-and-spoke networks 

The mathematics of hub-and-spoke networks reveal their powerful connectivity advantages. Consider this simple example: by operating just four routes from its hub, an airline can serve four city pairings with direct flights and another six city pairings with a connection, so 10 city pairings in total. 

This ‘network effect’ multiplies exponentially as the hub grows. Flying to 20 destinations from the hub allows a hub-and-spoke airline to offer up to 210 different city pairings! 

There is one caveat, however. To create these 210 city pairings, the airline needs to ensure a schedule which allows connectivity between all of the different routes. This is why airlines with a hub-and-spoke network operate schedules with ‘banks’ or ‘waves’. This ‘bank’ / ‘wave’ system coordinates flight arrivals and departures to optimize connections.  

During a wave at a typical hub, arriving flights are scheduled to land within a tight window (often 15-30 minutes), followed by sufficient ground time for passengers and their bags to connect to their next flight. This ground time varies by hub and type of connection – typically 30-45 minutes for domestic connections and longer for international transfers due to immigration requirements. Departures are then similarly grouped to maximize onward connection options.  

The number and size of banks varies significantly by hub. Large hubs might see more than seven daily banks, while smaller hubs might have just one or two daily banks.  

Hub-and-spoke in action: the Emirates example 

Besides offering an exponential growth in city pairings, connectivity also means expanding options by combining passenger flows. Have you ever wondered why Emirates is able to operate multiple daily A380 flights to relatively small cities? Is there such a high demand to and from Dubai? No, it is because Emirates not only takes passengers to Dubai but also offers connections to many other destinations via their Dubai hub. Combining all these passengers, this route now becomes economically viable, and what’s more, it allows Emirates to offer multiple daily flights with a large aircraft.  

This gives Emirates two distinct advantages: a larger aircraft usually means lower unit cost and offering more frequencies makes a more attractive product to passengers. 

The hub-and-spoke challenge 

The advantages of hub-and-spoke networks are clear: they allow airlines to serve more destinations at higher frequencies and with larger aircraft, enhancing the product for the passenger and lowering the unit cost. However, this network model also has several drawbacks: 

– Operational complexity 

– Peak period infrastructure and ground staff requirements 

– Limited scheduling flexibility, resulting in lower aircraft utilization 

– Complex baggage handling requirements 

– Lost connections in case of delays 

All these drawbacks result in increased costs for the airline. Mitigating these higher costs and capitalizing on combining passenger flows are therefore essential for airlines in their quest for profitability. 

Hub-and-spoke and its impact on passenger experience 

From the passenger’s perspective, we can identify many advantages and disadvantages of a hub-and-spoke network: 

Advantages: 

– Access to more destinations and city pairs 

– Generally lower fares than direct flights 

– Higher frequency options via different connecting paths 

– Better service to smaller communities 

– Often better Loyalty Program earning opportunities 

– More upgrade opportunities through multiple flight segments 

– Greater recovery options during disruptions 

– Access to better ground services at major hubs 

Disadvantages: 

– Longer total journey times 

– Connection stress and complexity 

– Risk of missed connections 

– Baggage transfer concerns 

– More complex rebooking during disruptions 

Many passengers are enticed to book connecting flights for their journey, indicating that the advantages of this system, especially the lower cost of tickets, far outweigh the disadvantages.  

Grid networks: the direct service alternative 

Grid networks, also known as point-to-point networks, focus on direct services between cities. When it comes to advantages and disadvantages, these are pretty much the exact opposite of the hub-and-spoke model, both for airlines and passengers. 

This system offers a shorter journey time with less stress but usually comes at the expense of higher prices for passengers. For the airlines, it reduces planning and operational complexity, but the advantage of combining passenger flows is lost. 

Therefore, the grid model thrives when there is strong demand between two cities. While most legacy airlines moved towards a hub-and-spoke model, Southwest Airlines showed how the advantages of the grid model could be exploited efficiently, using the scheduling freedom and limited complexity to lower the cost of operations far below those of the competitors. This was the birth of the low-cost carriers as we know them today. 

The future of airline networks 

The choice of network type remains one of aviation’s most crucial strategic decisions. Success requires careful analysis of market opportunities, operational constraints and competitive dynamics. The ideal network is dependent on the market and the airline, but one thing is sure, flexibility and adaptation to changing market conditions will be key to sustainable growth. 

For airlines, the future likely lies in sophisticated hybrid models that combine the efficiency of grid networks operations with the market coverage of hub-and-spoke systems, all enhanced by new partnership and technology capabilities such as virtual interlining. 

So, next time you are looking for a flight, you’ll have a better understanding of why there are so many different options to get from A to B, each with their own advantages and disadvantages, both for you and for the airline. 

The views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of AeroTime.      

The aviation industry is on the brink of a technological transformation, driven by the adoption of blockchain technology. Blockchain is a digital ledger technology that securely records ‘transactions’ across multiple computers, ensuring data integrity and transparency without the need for a central authority. Known for its secure, decentralized nature, blockchain has the potential to revolutionize various aspects of aviation, from enhancing safety and efficiency to improving customer experiences.  

As airlines and aviation authorities have explored this innovative technology, several key projects have emerged as pioneers in its application. This article delves into the ongoing developments in blockchain within aviation, focusing on the European Union Aviation Safety Agency’s (EASA) VIRTUA project and GE Aviation’s successful implementation for tracking aircraft parts, while also exploring other significant uses of blockchain in the industry. 

The VIRTUA Project: A landmark initiative in aviation safety 

The VIRTUA project, initiated by the European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), marked a significant step forward in leveraging blockchain technology to enhance aviation safety management. Concluded in September 2024, the initiative was a collaboration between industry leaders such as FPT Software Europe, the International Air Transport Association (IATA), SkyThread, and PwC France. The project’s primary objective was to assess the feasibility and advantages of using blockchain to manage approved aircraft parts and components.

VIRTUA focused on evaluating how blockchain could improve safety management processes for aviation authorities, operators and stakeholders. It explored various blockchain types and their potential applications throughout the lifecycle of aircraft parts, while also considering the impact on regulatory frameworks and industry standards. One of the key findings was the potential for enhanced traceability through ‘back-to-birth’ tracking of aircraft parts. This capability allows for precise tracking of each component from manufacture to retirement, significantly reducing the risk of counterfeit or unapproved parts entering the supply chain, which is a critical safety issue. 

Additionally, VIRTUA highlighted blockchain’s ability to improve data integrity via the secure storage of maintenance records and compliance documentation on an immutable ledger. This ensures the accuracy and transparency of safety-critical data throughout an aircraft’s lifecycle. The project also suggested that blockchain could streamline regulatory processes by facilitating more efficient interactions between airlines and regulatory bodies. Transparent records of part histories and maintenance activities could simplify compliance verification, reducing administrative burdens while also enhancing safety oversight. 

Furthermore, VIRTUA explored how blockchain could enhance lifecycle management of certificates issued by production organizations and modified by design or maintenance entities. This comprehensive approach promises to improve management and verification processes for aircraft component certifications. Emphasizing collaboration among stakeholders, VIRTUA demonstrated how blockchain could create a shared platform for information exchange between manufacturers, airlines, maintenance organizations and regulators. 

The successful conclusion of the VIRTUA project set a precedent for further exploration and implementation of blockchain technology in aviation safety management, across Europe and indeed beyond. Its findings are expected to inform future regulatory frameworks and guidelines for blockchain solutions in aviation safety management. As Nick Careen from IATA noted, “We believe that this project will provide a comprehensive vision on how blockchain solutions could contribute to addressing the issue”. Ultimately, VIRTUA represents not just a technological exploration, but also a potential paradigm shift in how the aviation industry could approach safety management and regulatory compliance. 

Beyond VIRTUA: GE Aviation’s innovative approach 

While EASA’s VIRTUA project explored blockchain’s potential in aviation safety, GE Aviation has implemented a groundbreaking blockchain solution, transforming operational efficiency and transparency within the sector. 

GE Aviation’s sophisticated blockchain implementation creates a ‘back-to-birth’ record for engine components, establishing a digital history for each aircraft part. This system, likened to “Ancestry.com for Jet Engines,” provides a secure, digitized paper trail for used and Life Limited Parts (LLP) in their TRUEngine programs, spanning the entire lifecycle of aircraft parts. 

David Havera, GE Aviation’s blockchain expert, highlights that this technology drives residual value for used spare materials up to 50% higher, facilitates faster resale processes, and improves asset transfer productivity. These benefits are crucial in an industry where 45% of commercial aircraft are owned by lessors, with 60% change ownership every five years. 

The implementation has yielded substantial benefits, including enhanced real-time parts tracking, improved operational efficiency and the release of millions in unsettled cash. MTU Maintenance, a partner in this initiative, reported the release of over $10 million in unsettled cash from revenue sharing reconciliation. 

Industry estimates suggest GE’s blockchain solution could potentially reduce maintenance costs across the sector by billions annually. It ensures that only certified parts are used, minimizing costly failures and streamlining maintenance processes. 

GE Aviation has now expanded its blockchain efforts beyond parts tracking, partnering with TE-FOOD to address broader supply chain challenges. They also launched a blockchain-based solution for health screening and aircraft cleaning in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. 

This successful implementation serves as a compelling case study, demonstrating blockchain’s potential to address long-standing challenges in aviation operations, ultimately enhancing safety, efficiency and cost-effectiveness. 

Broader applications of blockchain in aviation 

Beyond these notable projects, various applications for blockchain technology are being explored throughout the aviation industry: 

1. Supply Chain Management 
   Blockchain provides a transparent and tamper-proof record of transactions, making it ideal for managing supply chains in aviation. Airlines can track parts from production to installation, ensuring authenticity and reducing the risk of counterfeit components entering their systems. 

2. Passenger Identity Management 
   Blockchain can revolutionize the way in which passenger identities are verified. By creating a secure, decentralized identity system, airlines can streamline check-in processes and enhance security while reducing fraud risks associated with identity theft. 

3. Loyalty Programs 
   Many airlines are exploring the possibilities of blockchain being used to benefit their loyalty programs. The technology allows for more efficient management of points accumulation and redemption processes, while enabling easier transfers between different loyalty programs. 

4. Maintenance Records 
   Building on GE Aviation’s success, other companies are now looking to implement blockchain for the maintaining of comprehensive aircraft service records. This ensures a complete history of each aircraft’s maintenance activities, improving safety and regulatory compliance. 

5. Flight Data Recording 
   Blockchain can provide a secure distributed system for recording flight data. This capability is crucial during accident investigations and ongoing safety monitoring, ensuring that critical data remains preserved and tamper-proof. 

6. Smart Contracts for Automated Processes 
   Smart contracts on blockchain can automate various repetitive processes within the aviation sector, such as purchasing travel insurance or managing loyalty programs, reducing administrative burdens and enhancing customer experiences. 

7. Crew Management and Pilot Logbooks 
   Blockchain offers a secure method for managing crew schedules and maintaining pilot logbooks. This ensures accurate records of flight hours and qualifications, while also simplifying regulatory compliance and audits. 

8. Cargo Tracking 
   Accurate tracking of cargo is essential in aviation logistics. Blockchain provides real-time visibility into cargo movements, reducing lost or mishandled shipments while enhancing customer satisfaction through improved transparency. 

9. Ground Operations 
   The adoption of blockchain can streamline ground operations by improving tracking and tracing capabilities across various functions like refueling, baggage handling and maintenance scheduling. 

Challenges to adoption 

Despite its potential benefits, the adoption of blockchain within aviation faces several significant challenges. Scalability is a primary concern, as the industry processes an enormous volume of daily transactions that any blockchain solution must be able to handle efficiently without compromising performance. 

Regulatory compliance presents another hurdle. The highly regulated aviation industry requires blockchain implementations to meet stringent safety and security standards, while navigating complex approval processes from global aviation authorities. 

Integration with existing legacy systems, which form the backbone of many aviation operations, poses further technical and financial challenges. Careful planning is needed to ensure seamless integration without disrupting critical processes. 

Data privacy concerns are significant, as blockchain’s transparency can conflict with the need to protect sensitive passenger information and proprietary company data. Striking the right balance between transparency and privacy here is crucial. 

Finally, widespread adoption across all stakeholders, airlines, manufacturers, regulators and passengers is necessary in order for blockchain to reach its full potential. This requires overcoming technical challenges, as well as cultural and organizational resistance to change. 

Addressing these challenges demands concerted effort, innovation and cooperation across the aviation industry. However, many believe that overcoming these hurdles is essential for the future of aviation, as blockchain’s potential benefits become increasingly clear. 

Future outlook 

The future of blockchain in aviation looks promising, as more successful implementations emerge across the industry. With projects like VIRTUA paving the way for enhanced safety protocols and GE Aviation demonstrating tangible financial benefits through improved inventory management, we can expect broader adoption throughout various operational domains. 

As airlines continue to explore innovative applications of this technology, ranging from enhanced passenger services to improved operational efficiencies, the insights gained from early adopters will guide future innovations in air travel. 

Blockchain technology, then, stands poised to transform the aviation industry fundamentally. Its ability to enhance safety standards, streamline operations, improve customer experiences and reduce costs positions it as a vital tool for addressing some of the industry’s most pressing challenges. As stakeholders collaborate to overcome existing barriers to adoption and leverage this transformative technology fully, we can anticipate a more efficient, secure and transparent future for air travel. 

Gavin’s previous roles have included development in British Airways, as well as consultancy projects for United Airlines, American Airlines, Qantas, and supporting the development of low-cost airlines to touristic destinations. Gavin has held a Board Position (CCO) at Portuguese airline SATA International and has been the advisor to the Board of Visit Portugal on air connectivity.  

As a Professor, Gavin is responsible for programs spanning the commercial aspects of aviation and airports and works closely with Aeroclass on executive courses bringing DMOs and airports together for tailored learning programs that support route development for destinations. 

Will you fly to my airport or destination? This is the key question that airport marketing teams and tourism boards pose to airlines every day. But put yourself in the shoes of the carrier and how they might view your offer.  

From the airline’s perspective, it is all about trying to add new destinations to the route network, where the key function is performing route evaluations in order to know if a route will be profitable in the long term. So, if you can offer insights and a business case that helps reduce this uncertainty, you will stand in good stead with your airline partner.  

In essence, airliners use four programs and tools to perform their route studies: focusing on passenger demand forecasts, connectivity (behind and beyond the two locations that are being studied), aircraft accessibility, and the competitor landscape.   

These four key principles can be applied to an airline looking to tweak existing routes and plan new ones. 

What does demand look like? 

In reality, the first question the airline planning team will look to ask, particularly when considering a brand-new route, is quite simple, how many passengers will travel on such a flight? So, to be able to answer and provide new insights for the decision, most airlines will use aviation market intelligence tools to analyze all available information. 

This data comes from within the airline itself, as well as industry-wide passenger information that identifies trends in traffic. And essential data points to consider are fares, routes, airlines, and connections, whereby carriers are then looking to deploy this data to estimate how many passengers are traveling daily (including connections) between airport pairs. For example, there is only one daily flight from Daytona Beach in Florida to New York’s JFK airport, operated by JetBlue, but passengers can also travel on alternative airlines between these cities. For instance, a passenger that has strong brand affinity with American Airlines might decide to take their one-stop service via Charlotte.  

From the multiple databases, airlines can study the ways people will make connections between two points when the destination has no direct service thus gaining valuable insights on which cities passengers connects through, the chosen airlines they flew on, and the average fare they purchased for each leg. And with such data airlines can then confirm what kind of aircraft is best suited for the route. 

Connectivity – behind and beyond the airports in question 

From the legacy airline’s perspective, most carriers have one or more hubs where they operate most of their flights, and the opportunity then for the network planning team is to make sure that most passengers will be able to go to the destination of their choice in the airline’s route network. Continuing with our Florida example, for those passengers flying out of Daytona Beach, the only nonstop flights are to Atlanta, Charlotte, and New York-JFK. At these airports, the flights are also timed to allow passengers to connect to a different flight, which will then take them on to their final destination. Local traffic between point A and point B is important, but airlines can also gain more traffic flow by getting passengers from connecting flights at the hub. Therefore, the network planning team must consider how many passengers can connect directly from Buffalo to Daytona Beach versus those connecting through JFK, as well as passengers from many other smaller airports. This strategy ensures that flights to Florida are fully booked by maximizing both local and connecting traffic. 

Airlines can then predict revenue and profit on a route depending on different times of the day. In particular, if the flight is scheduled at a time when there is no possibility of connection to other cities then the airline might not do as well as a flight that is timed for inbound and outbound connections. Some flights have an optimal time for local traffic whereas other flights are timed for passenger connectivity. 

Picking the aircraft to serve the route best 

Another key function of the network team is determining which of the fleet to use on the route. From the perspective of airports or tourism boards there’s an idea that bigger is always better. For airports it’s all about the non-aviation gains that come with a greater number of passengers. And when it comes to tourism, more passengers potentially mean more hotel stays. 

However, the demand analysis described earlier will help with the fleet decision, as ensuring you have the highest load-factor (numbers of seats occupied), and yields (revenue per seat) is a key milestone for the airline’s pricing and revenue management team. 

The competitive landscape 

Opening a new route that’s already flown by another air carrier is not unusual since there are thousands of airlines operating in the world, and the potential to ‘take passengers away from other carriers’ is the reason why. However, for an airline to believe it can succeed it will require strong analysis, and a reality that is not just adding capacity as a way to show strength. Otherwise, an airline can lose money very quickly by trying to muscle-in on a route that has successes already assigned. But some airlines might have an advantage. Large airlines, as mentioned earlier, can feed their flights at their hubs with connecting passenger traffic. On the other hand, smaller airlines that operate the ‘point-to-point’ model can provide a better experience and consider a more focused strategy. In essence, this is the legacy versus low-cost model that has been unfolding in the aviation space over the last few years. 

And when a passenger goes to book a flight, there are some nonstop routes they would expect to find every time, for example, New York to London. But when a passenger is considering both smaller airports as well as major and minor international ones, their travel plans from A to B might include a stopover. 

So, what goes into airlines’ route planning? 

Route planning explained 

Unsurprisingly, route offerings are not static, and they often change throughout the year – many airlines operate seasonal routes to accommodate travel trends. In particular, summer within the European landscape sees many airlines ramp up their route offerings, adding new cities or additional flights on established routes. And it all comes down to a team of network analysts crunching all sorts of numbers to figure out which routes are not only in demand, but also profitable. 

But operational feasibility must also be considered. Particularly, the logistics of operating a route, such as the availability of aircraft and crew. Also, some particularly congested airports may be subject to capacity restrictions and a slot system may be in place that permits airlines a certain number of takeoffs and landings per day. Operational feasibility also involves other governmental regulations, particularly for international destinations. International route planning, especially for a new destination, can be more complicated as carriers need to factor in the foreign point-of-sale demand trajectory and all the regulatory constraints with flight-rights and bilateral air services accordingly. 

The strategic value of the route is also taken into consideration when planning. For example, even if demand for a certain route might be somewhat weak, an airline may choose to fly the route with the goal of it becoming more ‘in-demand’ over time. And destinations themselves can also come into play here, as local governments may lobby for specific routes to drum up new tourism potential, offering incentives and marketing to drive ticket sales. 

Planning is a difficult job

Route planning is constantly in motion with airlines, which is good and bad for airports and destinations, respectively. Pre-pandemic, legacy airlines were averaging about 50 new routes per year, but, on the flip side, carriers were suspending around 40 services. So, destination stakeholders may be gaining at the expense of another destination, but they need to have a three-year plan for a route. If destinations constantly see routes start and stop, the money spent on advertising and promotion is wasted and the key for route development is more sustainable success and not media PR to win over local communities. 

To ensure that airlines are on top of the network, carriers are planning one to five years out, using trends and insights and monitoring market dynamics closely while also being nimble on route plans that can support experiments. d decide to serve a route in a period less than a year, which was not the norm. Post-COVID experiments are still happening, but the vision is also based on seasonality issues and, rather than saying we serve the full seven-month summer IATA season, airlines may just fly mid-June to mid-September allowing destinations to gain more traffic during the peak season. But this may not help with the destination’s seasonality challenges. 

So, what next? 

Airports and destinations may sometimes get the feeling that route decisions are made arbitrarily, as though the airlines are randomly throwing darts at a world map. While there are cases where route decisions are hastily made and not givenmuch thought, usually they are made deliberately andutilizing key insights and programs that consider passenger demand, competition, fares, and the potential for connections behind and beyond the airports in question. 

Network planning is an extensive, strategic process, with many decisions needing support and understanding from other parts of the airline. Planning cannot be done without strong support from human resources, as in many cases carriers may have the route ready, but do not have the crew available to deliver the service. 

When evaluating new routes, the planner must determine the following as part of their analysis. How airports and destinations assist in answering these is a vital part of a route development business case. 

• What are the target markets for the new route? 

• How many days per week should the route be served? 

• At what time of day should a route be served? 

• What type of aircraft should be used to serve the route? 

• Who will be the main competitors? 

• What costs and revenues are expected when operating the route? 

In summary, the network planner must analyze the opportunity cost of deploying the aircraft to the new route under evaluation versus other opportunities in the airlines’ network. This means that an already complex task is becoming even more complicated. Does route A offer me a better route business case than route B? And to answer this question, the future will be reliant on models and forecasting technologies. Advanced and straightforward network planning tools try to achieve the same thing – a forecast into the future.  

The future of planning must include historic insights (i.e., airline schedules) and demand data (i.e., bookings and sentiment analysis) and tools available today use machine-learning algorithms to calibrate their underlying models based on past and future insights. This occurs in two essential components of planning tools: the Connection Builder and the Market Share Mode.  

Firstly, the Connection Builder will forecast what and how many itineraries are available for a passenger to choose from in a given market. Secondly, the Market Share Model will forecast the attractiveness of different itineraries, calibrated on millions of historical passenger itineraries analyzing relevant parameters such as airline preference, departure time, connect time, and detour factor. 

So, planning routes is not an easy process and as airports and destinations continue to ask why airlines are not flying to support a region, putting yourself in the shoes of the network decision maker is key.

Follow Dr. Klaus Radermacher’s LinkedIn newsletter “Think. Mobility. Differently.” for regular insights on mobility concepts and transportation systems.   

The views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of AeroTime. 

One cannot talk about mobility and try to develop innovative and efficient transportation systems without being aware of some basic physical facts. In the following text I will try to present these in a very general way, but for readers interested in further details the most relevant physical formulas are listed at the end. 

Physics of mobility 101 

Every movement, every transportation, regardless of whether it takes place in a car, by train, on a bicycle, in an airplane or simply by walking, requires energy.  

Energy is always required  

• for acceleration, 

• to overcome air drag, as well as rolling and friction resistance of wheels on road and rail, 

• and for “lifting work”, i.e., working against gravity. 

It must be noted that energy to overcome air drag is only required when the movement takes place in an atmospheric environment. Outside an atmosphere, e.g., on the way to the Moon or other planets, or even in outer space, there is no air drag, as soon as the Earth’s atmosphere has been left behind. This is why research orbiters can travel ‘forever’ through space once they have been accelerated sufficiently and are outside any significant atmosphere. Further considerations in this text are restricted to land-based and air travel on this planet. 

The following parameters are decisive for the total energy required for a transportation process:  

• the speed at which the means of transportation moves and to which it must be accelerated, 

• the total mass to be moved, 

• the number of acceleration processes that occur during the transportation process between origin and destination, 

• the total elevation (altitude) to be overcome during the transportation process for which lifting work must be performed. 

The mass to be moved (in kilograms, kg) plays a decisive role both in the energy required for acceleration and for the lifting work. The speed (in kilometers per hour, km/h) is one of the relevant variables for the energy required for acceleration and for overcoming air drag. The shape of the means of transport (the more streamlined the better), which is included in the calculation formula as the cd value (air drag coefficient), the air density r (Greek letter rho, in kg/m³), which decreases approximately logarithmically with increasing altitude, and the “frontal area” of a vehicle or the wing area of an aircraft are also important for air drag. It is important to understand that speed influences both the acceleration energy and the energy required to overcome air drag as a quadratic variable. Twice the speed requires four times the energy. 

At speeds of around 80km/h (50mph) and above, the air drag becomes so great in relation to the rolling and frictional resistance of land-based means of transport that the latter can be largely ignored for energy calculations. We will therefore not go into these variables any further at this point.  

What is of great importance, however, is that the physical calculations for overcoming air drag are based on the assumption that the means of transportation can easily push away the air against which it is fighting. This assumption is correct, unless you are in a comparatively narrow enclosure, such as a railroad tunnel. Since tunnels for high-speed lines must always be built as a single track tube for safety reasons from a length of 500 meters and longer and therefore just fit around the train, it is necessary here that the air, which cannot escape to the side due to the tunnel walls, must be pushed forward towards the tunnel exit like a piston that is getting bigger and heavier. Depending on the length of the tunnel and the speed of the train, this means that the amount of energy required to overcome the air drag when passing through the tunnel can easily be twice as much or more compared with traveling across an open field. 

What masses need to be moved? 

Let us now look at the mass that has to be moved for each passenger depending on the transport system. For a passenger, a mass of 100kg including luggage is generally assumed as the ‘payload’, to which the proportional weight of the means of transport must then be added. 

An average car weighs 1,500kg; statistically speaking, there are (only) 1.5 people in it when it is being driven, so we are dealing with one ton of vehicle weight per passenger. Additionally, about 17kg of fuel in the tank per person must be included, so we have 1,117kg of mass per person for mobility in MIT (motorized private transport); quite a lot, considering that the payload is only 100kg. 

An empty ICE train (a German high-speed train) weighs 408 tons. Before COVID-19, Deutsche Bahn trains had an average occupancy rate of 56%, meaning just over half the seats were typically filled.

At this level of occupancy, approximately 1,700 kg (1.7 tons) of the train’s weight corresponds to each passenger. When you add the passenger’s own weight (estimated at 100 kg, including luggage), a total of 1,800 kg (1.8 tons) must be moved for each person on board. Incidentally, the average capacity utilization of trains in Switzerland is only around 28%​. If we take the SBB RABe 502 (aka FV-Dosto, TWINDEXX Express) from Bombardier, which is widely used there, as an example, more than 2.5 tons of train weight must be moved per passenger​. In these examples, we assume trains are electric, so no fuel must be carried. In case trains run on diesel, the average amount of diesel in the tank would have to be added to the overall mass. 

For aviation, we take an Airbus A321 as a basis, a rather large plane for domestic air travel. We then have to distribute the empty weight of 47.5 tons to the number of passengers based on an average load factor (utilization). This results in a total aircraft weight of around 290kg per passenger. In addition, there is an average of 57kg of kerosene per passenger in the tanks at the time of takeoff, so that ultimately a mass of slightly under 450kg per passenger must be accelerated and moved. 

We see that an average-loaded train has to move four times the mass per passenger compared to an average-loaded domestic flight. This fact has a significant influence on the amount of energy required for acceleration and lifting work. 

Energy calculations 

The energy required for acceleration depends not only on the mass but also on the final speed. The speed is included in this calculation as a square; doubling the final speed requires four times the acceleration energy. Accelerating a mass of 1,117kg (one person in a car) once to 130km/h requires 728kJ (kilojoules) of energy. Accelerating this mass to 180km/h requires around 1,400kJ, almost twice as much. Accelerating a passenger on a train (1,800kg) to 270km/h requires 5,063kJ; accelerating a passenger (450kg) to around 880km/h on a plane adds 13,525kJ to our energy bill for the flight. These examples clearly illustrate what the quadratic component of final speed input means in the calculation. 

But our considerations are not over yet. Let’s compare a journey from Hamburg to Munich. In an airplane, we have exactly one acceleration process at takeoff, while the train stops at least eight times at train stations in between even with the fastest connection. We have another acceleration process from 0 to 270km/h (or more) after each stop at the station, so compared to just over 13,500kJ for the acceleration of the plane, at least 45,567kJ is on the energy bill just for acceleration on the train. From Hamburg to Zurich there are even more stops on the way and thus 14 acceleration processes are required, just after stopping at the stations. 

Added to this are all the additional acceleration processes caused by varying maximum speeds along the route. The same applies to traveling by car; dozens, sometimes hundreds, of changes in speed caused by the route and traffic result in an extremely inefficient motion sequence from a physical and energy point of view.  

We recognize an important physical principle here: the more uniform the movement, the fewer accelerations, and decelerations, the more efficient the movement is from an energy point of view. Traffic must flow! Air travel, which is usually point to point with no intermediate stops, has a significant advantage over land-based mobility systems regarding movement efficiency. 

However, with electrically powered transportation systems, it is possible to convert some of the kinetic energy back into electrical energy when slowing down and return it either to a battery (electric cars) or to the power grid (trains). This is already being used in many ways, but the effects are and remain comparatively small and are disproportionate to the energy previously required for the many acceleration processes.  

The issue of frequent, system-related acceleration processes in rail and road transport is supplemented by the usually significantly greater distances that have to be covered between two locations in order to get from the starting point of a trip to its destination. 

The map shows a number of classic routes (Hamburg-Munich, Hamburg-Zurich, Berlin-Munich) for the fastest train connection compared to the route for aircraft, as the crow flies. The land routes are between 30% and 35% longer. To be fair, it must be stated that aircraft do not always travel the shortest possible distance between two airports due to fixed arrival and departure routes and air traffic control requirements. However, the resulting route extensions are still significantly shorter than traveling by train or car. 

The energy required for the aforementioned lifting work also depends on the mass, and the altitude at which the mass must be lifted. Lifting work is not only required for airplanes, but also for land-based means of transport as soon as they have to overcome an incline, even if they never take off from the road or rail. For car drivers, this is immediately apparent from the fuel consumption display when driving uphill.  

The total difference in altitude to be overcome on the route is relevant. Since only just under a quarter of the mass per passenger has to be moved in an airplane compared to a train, the total energy required for the lifting work on the Munich-Hamburg route is also lower, even though the airplane climbs to an altitude of around 10,000 meters. Although trains and cars always remain on the ground and must cope with significantly smaller differences in altitude, they have to use more energy for lifting work due to their greater mass. Specifically for our example from Hamburg to Munich, for a passenger with a total mass of 447kg and an assumed cruising altitude of 10,000 meters, 43,851kJ of energy must be expended for the lifting work. The ICE train on the same route only has to cope with lifting work for a total of 2,599 meters, but since an average of 1.8 tons needs to be moved for each individual passenger, the energy adds up to 45,893kJ, more than for a passenger in a plane. Who would have expected that? Yes, doing the math by applying the laws of physics sometimes leads to surprising results. 

Calculating the amount of energy required to overcome air drag is far more complex. The exact cd value for the vehicle must be known, the air density which depends on temperature and altitude, and the specific situation changes with every minimal change in speed relative to the surrounding air. In the case of rail travel, tunnels passed through at high speed are also very inefficient from an energy point of view. It is important to understand that air drag must be overcome continuously during a transportation process, so the amount of energy required for this must be calculated for each PKM (passenger-kilometer) covered. The shorter the distance, the better.  

If we assume a car with a frontal area of 3 m², a cd value of 0.3 and an air density of 1.225kg/m³ in road traffic, this results in a value of 479kJ per PKM for overcoming air drag at 130km/h with an average load of 1.5 people in the vehicle. At 180km/h, this is already 919kJ in the same car under the same conditions. In aviation, the high speeds do have a negative effect on these calculations; on the positive side, the air density at the cruising altitude of aircraft is only around 35%-40% of the density on the ground. The cd value is also significantly lower, but the relevant wing area is significantly larger than the frontal area of a car. High-speed trains are also more streamlined than the vast majority of cars, but their length of several hundred meters results in a comparatively high cd value, and they also have to fight their way through the much denser air at ground level. 

In summary, it can be said that the lower the total mass to be moved and the lower the number of acceleration processes that must be carried out, the more energy-efficient a movement process is. The rail and road transport systems in particular have considerable potential for optimization in this respect with regard to their current usage. 

What’s the bottom line? 

Looking at and comparing different mobility and transportation systems from a physics’ perspective leads to interesting results. Having to move around a much lower mass per passenger compared to driving in a car or riding on a train is a great advantage. The fact that aviation manufacturers have been working on weight reductions for decades is a great benefit over other mobility systems, especially since there is still a tendency for new generations of cars to become heavier than in the past. Electric vehicles are particularly bad at this, since the batteries alone are always good for several hundred kilograms of extra weight, which always needs to be moved, accelerated and lifted. The much higher speed of aircraft, however, is responsible for a higher energy consumption to overcome the air drag, despite the lower air density at cruising altitudes of aircraft. On the other hand, not having to follow land-based paths allows for a considerable shorter distance to be overcome between two points.  

At several hundred kilometers, transporting 180 passengers at the average utilization rate in a modern, fuel-efficient plane is far more energy efficient than driving the same distance with 120 average cars with average utilization. Even the train ride is not necessarily more energy efficient. In addition to that, the plane does not need any route infrastructure (highways, streets, train tracks) between its nodes (airports), the air does not need to be built. Route infrastructure for cars and in particular for trains is an immense source of CO2, which needs to be included in the overall CO2 calculations for mobility systems and finally needs to be attributed to the traffic performance in PKM. Especially, when there is little demand on certain routes, the CO2 costs per PKM increase dramatically, as the CO2 emissions from construction are independent of the usage over the years. 

There is absolutely no reason to condemn or glorify certain mobility systems. They all have their justification. It is always helpful to look at facts and figures from a science and engineering perspective. Ideology and emotions will not get us to the solutions we urgently need. 

Appendix: Formulas for physics buffs 

Energy for acceleration: 0.5 * m * v²  
with m: mass in kg, v: speed (velocity) in m/s (meters per second). 

Energy for lifting work: m * g * h 
with m: mass in kg, g: gravitational constant = 9.81 m/s2 , h: altitude in m. 

Energy to overcome the air drag: 0.5 * r * c_d * A * v² 
with r: air density in kg/m³, cd : drag coefficient, A: frontal area of the vehicle, for airplanes wing area, v: speed in m/s. 

Through Air52, Koen assists airlines, airports, and industry stakeholders with practical solutions for complex challenges, drawing on his extensive background in feasibility studies, fleet and network planning, and airline startups. He also contributes to IATA training courses and serves as faculty for Aviation MBA programs.   

The views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of AeroTime.    

Behind every international flight booking lies an intricate diplomatic dance. When you browse routes from Paris to New York, comparing Air France, Delta, and British Airways options, you’re seeing the result of decades of negotiations and carefully balanced rights. These Air Service Agreements (ASAs) shape international aviation, determining which airlines can fly where. 

Unlike the simpler process of driving across borders, international aviation operates under precise diplomatic frameworks. Every international flight exists because governments have negotiated specific terms for market access.  

The freedom framework: Aviation’s nine commandments 

At the heart of these diplomatic negotiations lie the ‘freedoms of the Air’ – nine specific rights that countries can grant each other’s airlines. These freedoms form the foundation of international air services, determining exactly what airlines can and cannot do in international operations. 

First freedom: The right to fly over another country’s territory without landing. Example: British Airways crossing French airspace enroute to Germany. 

Second freedom: The right to make a technical stop in another country without embarking or disembarking passengers or cargo. 

Third freedom: The right to fly passengers from your home country to another. Example: Air France Paris-New York. 

Fourth freedom: The right to fly passengers from another country back to your home country. Example: Air France New York-Paris. 

Fifth freedom: The right to carry traffic between two foreign countries as part of a flight originating or ending in your home country. Example: Singapore Airlines’ New York-Frankfurt-Singapore route. 

Sixth freedom: The right to carry traffic between two foreign countries via your home country. Example: Emirates connecting passengers from Tokyo to Berlin via Dubai. 

Seventh freedom: The right to operate standalone flights between two foreign countries without connecting to the home country. Example: easyJet operating between Ireland and Spain. 

Eighth freedom: The right to carry traffic between two points in a foreign country as part of an international service (consecutive cabotage). 

Ninth freedom: The right to operate domestic flights within a foreign country (pure cabotage) – the rarest and most jealously guarded of all aviation rights. Example: Ryanair operating from Rome to Milan.  

The nationality question 

One crucial aspect of Air Service Agreements that shapes the entire industry is their typically binary nature. Most agreements only allow airlines registered in the two signatory countries to operate third, fourth, and sixth freedom rights between those nations. This restriction explains why we see seemingly complex corporate structures in international airline groups. 

Consider Air France-KLM. Despite operating as a single company since 2004, they maintain separate Air Operator Certificates (AOCs) and registrations in France and the Netherlands. This isn’t just bureaucratic complexity, it’s necessary to preserve access to both countries’ bilateral agreements. If they operated under a single registration, they would lose access to either French or Dutch bilateral rights, potentially decimating their network. 

The modern framework: Beyond basic permissions 

Modern Air Service Agreements shape every aspect of international air transport through specific operational parameters: 

Frequency and capacity limitations determine how often airlines can operate and with what size aircraft. Some agreements limit service to just three weekly narrowbody flights, while others permit multiple daily widebody operations. These limitations directly impact an airline’s ability to serve markets profitably. 

Points of entry restrictions define which cities and airports airlines can serve. Agreements often limit foreign carriers to primary hubs while reserving secondary markets for national carriers. Chinese agreements historically restricted foreign carriers to Beijing, Shanghai, and Guangzhou, creating significant market development challenges for non-Chinese airlines. 

Pricing regulations, though less common nowadays, can impact market dynamics even further. Some agreements require government fare approval or maintain price floors to prevent destructive competition, affecting airlines’ ability to respond to changing market conditions. 

Modern agreements also address ground handling rights, codeshare arrangements, competition policy, safety standards, and environmental considerations – reflecting aviation’s increasing complexity.  

Removing the barriers: The path to Open Skies 

The journey toward liberalization and removing barriers began in 1993 when the United States and the Netherlands signed the first Open Skies agreement. This groundbreaking accord removed most restrictions on routes, capacity, and pricing between the two countries, though it stopped short of allowing domestic flights. It became the template for future liberalization efforts, demonstrating that more open markets could benefit both countries’ aviation sectors and economies. 

The European Union (EU) has taken this concept even further with its Single Aviation Market. Within the EU, any EU airline can operate any route, including domestic flights within any member state. This creates a truly open aviation market unprecedented in its scope. It allows Lufthansa to operate domestic flights in Spain, while an Irish carrier can base aircraft and crew in France to operate intra-European and domestic routes. 

The EU is now actively working to extend these principles internationally. Through horizontal agreements, they’re replacing traditional nationality clauses in bilateral agreements with provisions recognizing all EU carriers as eligible for route rights. If successful, this could allow scenarios where Lufthansa operates international routes from France to non-EU countries – a revolutionary change in how international aviation rights work. 

In a bold move that caught the attention of many industry observers, Argentina recently embraced the concept of fully liberalized skies, opening its market to unprecedented levels of competition. However, this situation perfectly illustrates a fundamental truth about aviation rights: it takes two to tango. Despite Argentina’s willingness to open its market, the practical impact depends entirely on other countries’ reciprocal willingness to participate in this liberalization dance. This asymmetry highlights how even the most ambitious unilateral liberalization efforts can face practical limitations in an industry that fundamentally depends on bilateral cooperation. 

How ICAO keeps the system running 

By encouraging and assisting governments in this dance, the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) plays a pivotal role in the development and liberalization of Air Service Agreements worldwide.  

It does so in three distinct ways:  

• Standardization and guidance 

ICAO provides comprehensive guidance and standardized templates for ASAs through its Template Air Services Agreements, promoting thorough and consistent agreements. 

• Database of Air Services Agreements 

Under Article 83 of the Chicago Convention, countries must register their agreements with the ICAO stored in the World Air Services Agreements (WASA) Database, making it the most complete repository of global air services agreements. 

• Facilitating negotiations 

ICAO supports governments in their air services negotiations by promoting key priorities such as liberalized market access for airlines and relaxed nationality requirements for airline ownership. By providing a neutral platform and expert guidance, ICAO helps countries navigate the complexities of negotiating and implementing ASAs, especially during the annual ICAO Air Services Negotiation (ICAN) event. This event provides a central meeting place for states to conduct bilateral, regional, or even plurilateral air services negotiations and consultations.  

Strategic implications for airlines 

For airline strategists and network planners, Air Service Agreements represent both opportunities and constraints that fundamentally shape their networks and business models.  

These agreements influence: 

Network development: The availability (or lack) of traffic rights often determines which routes airlines can fly, but also if they can establish hubs and focus cities. The success of major Gulf carriers, for instance, relies heavily on securing liberal sixth freedom rights that allow them to connect passengers through their hubs. 

Fleet planning: Traffic rights influence aircraft acquisition decisions. An airline might prefer to operate high-capacity aircraft on a route, but if the bilateral agreement limits aircraft size or frequency, they might need to adjust their fleet strategy accordingly. 

Partnership strategies: Restrictions in bilateral agreements often drive airlines toward partnerships and alliances. When unable to serve a market directly due to bilateral limitations, airlines might seek interline or codeshare partners or even join an alliance. 

Competitive positioning: Rights secured under Air Service Agreements can create sustainable competitive advantages. First-mover airlines that secure scarce frequency allocations, especially at slot-constrained airports, often maintain market dominance for years. 

The evolution continues 

Today’s aviation landscape continues to evolve. Low-cost carriers push for more liberal agreements to support their expansion. Gulf carriers leverage sixth freedom rights to build global networks through their hubs. And new technology, from longer-range narrowbody aircraft to electric vertical takeoff and landing (eVTOL) vehicles, raises fresh questions about how these agreements should adapt. 

For airlines, understanding and navigating this complex web of agreements remains crucial to strategy and network planning. Each new route must be evaluated not just for its commercial potential but for its political feasibility under existing bilateral agreements. 

For passengers, while the diplomatic intricacies might seem distant, they directly impact flight options, routes, and prices. That Paris-New York flight you were considering? It exists because of carefully negotiated rights, and its price reflects the level of competition allowed under international agreements. 

Next time you’re booking an international flight, remember that you’re not just choosing between airlines – you’re participating in a global system shaped by decades of diplomatic negotiations and careful balancing of national interests. It’s a complex dance that, despite its complications, helps connect our world in ways that would have seemed impossible just a few generations ago. 

At Skyllence, Vilma drives growth and fosters partnerships while ensuring excellence in air charter services.

The views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of AeroTime.    

The most common question friends and clients ask me is, “Should I buy an aircraft, or is chartering the better option?” This is especially frequent among those who travel privately often and are considering the convenience of owning their own plane. While the idea of ownership may seem attractive for frequent flyers, my advice almost always leans toward chartering. It offers unmatched flexibility, cost-efficiency, and freedom from the long-term liabilities associated with owning an aircraft. Below, I explain why chartering a private jet is often the smarter investment choice.

Cost efficiency

1. Lower initial and recurring costs: Purchasing a private jet involves an upfront cost ranging from $3 million for a small jet to over $100 million for long-range models, along with annual maintenance, crew salaries, insurance, and hangar fees that can total $700,000–$4 million annually. Chartering, on the other hand, avoids these ownership costs, with typical hourly rates between $2,000 and $15,000 depending on the aircraft type and destination.
2. Depreciation avoidance: Aircraft depreciate significantly over time, often losing 10-15% of their value annually. Owners must also contend with reduced resale values, making ownership less attractive as an investment.

Flexibility and variety

1. Access to diverse aircraft: Chartering allows you to select the most suitable jet for each trip, from small turboprops to large intercontinental jets. Ownership ties you to one model, which may not suit all travel needs.
2. Scalability: Chartering is ideal for occasional or variable travel needs, ensuring you pay only for what you use. Ownership, by contrast, requires full commitment to fixed costs regardless of utilization rates.

Operational ease

1. Simplified logistics: Jet owners must manage staffing, compliance, and maintenance, which can be time-consuming and costly. Chartering eliminates these burdens, as the operator handles all operational aspects.
2. Cost predictability: Chartering offers transparent pricing, avoiding unforeseen expenses like unexpected repairs or fuel price spikes common in ownership.

Strategic investment benefits

1. Liquidity preservation: Chartering frees up capital that would otherwise be tied up in a depreciating asset, enabling investments in higher-return ventures.
2. Risk mitigation: Ownership exposes you to market risks such as fluctuating operating costs and demand shifts in the aviation industry. Chartering shifts these risks to the operator.

From an investment perspective, chartering a private jet provides superior cost efficiency, operational flexibility, and reduced financial risks compared to ownership. It is the prudent choice for those seeking luxury and convenience without the hefty financial and logistical burdens of owning a jet.

As airlines struggle with pilot shortages and rising operational costs, the concept of single-pilot operations has emerged as a contentious talking point. At the forefront of this technological push is European aerospace conglomerate Airbus, whose efforts to develop AI-driven cockpit technology have sparked intense opposition from pilot associations worldwide. 

Airbus’s vision: A technological leap forward 

Airbus has been at the forefront of developing technologies to support ‘extended Minimum Crew Operations’ (eMCO). Christian Scherer, Chief Executive of Commercial Aircraft at Airbus, highlighted the feasibility of these developments in an interview, stating: “Technologically, it is feasible. And bear in mind, if you go to a one-man cockpit, you might as well go to a zero-man cockpit.” 

Airbus has made significant strides in autonomous flight technologies through Project Morgan, an ambitious initiative presented to FedEx in 2022, that proposed two new freighters with the potential for reduced crew operations. This overarching project encompasses two key programs: DragonFly and Optimate.  

DragonFly, utilising an A350-1000 test aircraft, has successfully tested various autonomous features including automated emergency diversion, automatic landing and taxi assistance. Complementing this, Optimate focuses on enhancing pilot assistance during ground operations, initially using an innovative electric truck that replicates key aircraft cockpit functions.  

Collectively, these initiatives showcase Airbus’s commitment to pushing the boundaries of aviation technology, with the ultimate goal of improving safety and efficiency, as well as potentially paving the way for reduced crew operations in the future. 

The opposition: pilot associations sound the alarm 

However, the push towards single-pilot operations has been met with fierce resistance from pilot associations worldwide. The Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA) has been particularly vocal in its opposition. ALPA President Jason Ambrosi has criticized the idea of replacing pilots with automation as “insane”. 

ALPA’s stance is backed by its recently updated white paper, “A Gamble with Safety: Reduced-Crew Operations’, which underscores the technical barriers that currently block the widespread implementation of autonomous decision-making and health monitoring necessary for single-pilot operations. 

The British Airline Pilots Association (BALPA) has also voiced strong opposition to reduced crew operations. It has stated: “BALPA is aligned with the IFALPA and ECA positions in opposition to reduced crew and single pilot operations”. This unified front amongst pilot associations demonstrates the widespread concern within the aviation community about the safety implications of single-pilot operations. 

Historical context of crew complement 

The debate over crew complement is nothing new for the aviation industry. When the first Boeing 737s were introduced in the late 1960s, they initially required a three-person crew: captain, first officer and flight engineer. ALPA advocated for maintaining this crew complement even as the subsequent designs integrated more automation than their predecessors. The association argued for keeping an additional set of eyes, ears and hands on the flight deck as a safeguard in high-workload situations or in case of crew incapacitation. 

Only after rigorous testing proved the safety of a two-person crew did ALPA agree to what is now the industry standard: two pilots on the flight deck. This historical context underscores the importance of thorough safety evaluations before implementing significant changes to flight deck operations. 

Public Perception and Concerns 

The idea of single-pilot operations doesn’t just face opposition from aviation professionals. It also raises significant concerns among the general public. According to a survey, 73% of US adults would never feel comfortable flying without two pilots on the flight deck, while 80% say remotely operated planes would make them feel less safe flying. The sentiment extends beyond the US, with 83% of Australians stating they would be more hesitant to book a commercial airline ticket if they knew there was only one pilot at the controls. Globally, 76% of adults in 15 surveyed countries expressed discomfort with the idea of pilotless planes. These statistics demonstrate the challenge that proponents of single-pilot operations face in gaining public trust and acceptance. 

Real-world examples highlight the importance of two pilots 

Historical and recent incidents have accentuated the critical importance of having two pilots in the flight deck.  

One well-known example occurred on June 10, 1990, when British Airways Flight 5390 experienced an explosive decompression that partially ejected the captain from the aircraft. As the BAC One-Eleven jet airliner began its flight from Birmingham to Málaga, an improperly installed windscreen panel separated from its airframe, forcing Captain Tim Lancaster head-first out of the cockpit. While members of the cabin crew held onto the captain by the legs to prevent him from being fully ejected, First Officer Alistair Atchison took control of the aircraft, safely landing it at Southampton Airport.  

More recently, in March 2023, Southwest Flight 6013 took off from Las Vegas destined for Columbus, Ohio, when one of the pilots experienced a medical emergency mid-flight. An off-duty pilot stepped in to assist the remaining pilot and helped the plane safely return to Las Vegas. This incident further illustrated that at least two pilots are required to share workloads during an emergency on the flight deck. 

At an ALPA press conference, FedEx Express Captain Hugo Carvajal and First Officer Robert Bradeen Jr. recounted their experience during Flight 1432 on February 4, 2023, where their combined efforts averted a potential collision with another aircraft during low visibility conditions. First Officer Brady emphasized: “When I think back on that day, had there been only one pilot on board, no matter who it was, the odds of a good outcome would be very low.” 

Similarly, Alaska Airlines First Officer Emily Wiprud, who was involved in the Alaska Airlines Flight 1282 incident on January 5, 2024, when a door plug blew off mid-flight, stressed the importance of having two pilots in the flight deck. She said: “I’m thankful that there were two flight crew members in the flight deck as it enabled us to work as a seamless team in returning to the ground safely”. 

These real-world examples, spanning more than three decades, consistently demonstrate the importance of having multiple trained professionals in the cockpit to handle unexpected situations and ensure passenger safety. They provide compelling evidence for maintaining the two-pilot standard in commercial aviation. 

The debate: Safety vs. Innovation 

The core of the debate centers on the balance between technological innovation and safety. Airbus and other proponents of single-pilot operations argue that advanced AI and automation can actually enhance safety by reducing human error and fatigue. They point to successful tests of autonomous technologies as evidence that AI can reliably assist or even temporarily replace human pilots in certain situations. 

However, research conducted by NASA raises important concerns about single-pilot operations. A study by NASA’s Ames Research Center pointed to significant increases in workload for single pilot operations compared to two-crew configurations. The research showed that, while pilots were able to overcome failure mode effects in all crew configurations, subjective assessments of safety and performance were significantly degraded in single-pilot scenarios. 

Additionally, pilot associations emphasize the irreplaceable value of human judgment and experience in the flight deck. They argue that having two pilots provides crucial redundancy and allows for better decision-making in complex or emergency situations. 

Challenges beyond technology 

While much of the focus has been on technological solutions, research from Coventry University suggests that designing the aircraft may be the easier part of implementing single-pilot operations. The study highlights that human factors, such as pilot fatigue, workload management and decision-making under stress, present significant challenges that go beyond technological solutions. 

The research highlights the need for a holistic approach to single-pilot operations, considering not just the technological aspects but also the psychological and physiological demands on the pilot. This includes addressing issues such as pilot incapacitation, communication with air traffic control, and maintaining situational awareness during long-haul flights.  

Regulatory hurdles and future outlook 

The path to implementing single-pilot operations is not just a matter of technological development. It also involves significant regulatory challenges. The European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) is currently evaluating the safety implications of the Airbus/Dassault proposal for eMCO. However, EASA has stated that no changes will be implemented before 2027, and single-pilot operations for commercial airline flights, if they ever happen, would be much further off. 

As of now, the timeline for potential implementation of single-pilot operations remains uncertain. While Airbus had initially aimed for cargo flight implementation by 2026 and passenger flights by 2030, industry sources suggest that these timelines may be overly optimistic. The regulatory process, which includes rulemaking and standards development by both EASA and the FAA, is expected to be lengthy and rigorous. 

The complex path forward 

The push for AI-driven single-pilot operations represents one of the most significant and controversial developments in modern aviation. As the debate continues, it’s clear that any move towards single-pilot operations will require extensive testing, regulatory approval and public acceptance. 

Whether or not single-pilot operations become a reality in the coming decades remains to be seen. What is certain, though, is that this debate will continue to shape the future of aviation, influencing everything from aircraft design and pilot training to regulatory frameworks and public perception of air travel safety. As technology continues to advance, the aviation industry must navigate the delicate balance between innovation and the paramount concern of passenger safety. 

While intercontinental flights between Europe and Asia are thriving, catching up to, if not surpassing, pre-COVID levels, European airlines’ flight frequencies to Greater China are being quietly, yet consistently reduced. This is yet another instance where geopolitics is the main driver behind a structural shift in the industry. 

Since the beginning of the Russian invasion of Ukraine on February 22, 2022, and the subsequent closure of Russian airspace to European airlines following European Union (EU) sanctions imposed on Russia, flights between Europe and Asia have transformed into another area of trade and economic tensions between the EU and the People’s Republic of China.  

European carriers have to reroute their flights to avoid Russian and Belarusian airspace, as well as most of Ukraine’s, but Chinese airlines do not. Indeed, Russian airspace remains open to Chinese carriers, a perk of the “no limits” partnership between the two nations. This puts Chinese carriers at a big competitive advantage against their European (and, to a lesser extent, American) rivals, thanks to the reduced flight time and corresponding fuel savings. As an example, this equates to a more than three-hour difference between China Southern Airlines’ flight CZ673 (nine hours and 58 minutes) and British Airways’ BA88 (13 hours and three minutes) on a flight from Guangzhou to London.  

With fuel typically accounting for roughly 25% of the cost of any given flight, European carriers’ margins on flights to China are currently under heavy stress. This adds to the existing subsidies Chinese airlines receive, either through local governments or through public ownership, to open intercontinental flights to Europe, driving tickets prices further down and bringing additional pressure on already weak yields. As a result, the share of Chinese airlines’ flights to Europe is expected to rise this winter from 56% in 2019 to 82%. Furthermore, around 18 new routes from China to Europe will be opened, all by Chinese carriers, often from second or third-tier cities and therefore heavily subsidized.  

But can this all be attributed to the Russian invasion of Ukraine? While being a key contributor to this paradigm shift, the invasion is far from being the only explanation. Actually, the foundations were laid for a structural reduction in demand between the “West” and China. Ever since the elections of Xi Jinping in 2012 and Donald Trump in 2016, and the subsequent trade war between the US and China, relations between the two blocks have become increasingly strained. 

Furthermore, the 2020 COVID pandemic has been a wake-up call in Europe regarding its economic dependency on China, but also regarding the ever-increasing lack of a level playing field in its competition with China, leading to a gradual “de-risking” strategy in the EU to diversify and rebalance its supply-chain partners in Asia.  

All those factors combined has led to diminishing demand in Europe and beyond for travel to China. A good counter example is the fact that Qantas, Australia’s flag carrier, stopped its Syndey to Shanghai route during the summer of 2024, despite being unaffected by Russian airspace’s closure. This is due to low demand all the while having the most intertwined ties of any western nation with China.  

Overall, while around 50 million visitors travelled to China in 2019 globally, there have only been 17 million so far this year. And with China’s economy facing its biggest slowdown in 45 years, demand for outbound travel is plummeting as a result. Yet, Chinese airlines are eager to capitalize on their new competitive advantage and secure quick cashflow, through the abovementioned launch of new routes and capacity dumping, to the detriment of yields, margin and overall profitability. Indeed, while foreign carriers enjoy industry-high levels of profitability, driven by high fares and demand worldwide, this is not the case in China. China Southern Airlines alone lost a total of around US$5 billion in 2022, reduced to a loss of US$420 million last year.  

Finally, with demand outside of China being very high, and because of the abovementioned reasons, European carriers are incentivized to redeploy capacity on markets with better yields prospects.  

The consequence of these dynamics is, predictably, the slow but consistent withdrawal of European carriers from the Chinese market for competitive reasons.  

Below is a non-comprehensive list of the carriers pulling out or having pulled out of Chinese market altogether. 

It must be noted that Air France is also lobbying the French government to have the Chinese carriers taxed in some way to create a more level playing field, without success thus far.  

With the war in Ukraine and China’s economic slowdown showing no signs of abating, could this situation be the “new normal” for flights to China going forward?  

China’s political stance towards Russia should determine, to some degree, if its aviation market enters a long period of international closure or not. The country’s contested neutrality towards, if not outright siding with Russia, leads to the assumption that this “new normal” could indeed become the norm for the years to come. One way for European airlines to address the situation is to capitalize on their partnerships with Chinese carriers. For example, while having exited the Frankfurt to Beijing market, Lufthansa now relies on its joint venture with Air China to address its customers’ needs. 

Conversely, emerging markets in Asia such as India, Vietnam, Thailand, or Indonesia are in high demand, allowing European airlines to redeploy their Chinese market capacities and to grow in the region. 

Finally, mature markets, such as Japan, Singapore, South Korea, or Taiwan are also experiencing a post-COVID rebound in demand, offering further opportunities for European airlines to rebalance their network while mitigating risks on the Chinese market.   

The views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of AeroTime.   

What is the real key to personalisation? Here’s a hint, it is not new distribution capability (NDC). 

The real key spells CDP, which stands for customer data platform. But we don’t need to get wrapped up in which acronym to use. We can call it 360° platform or full customer view, it doesn’t really matter.  

Wouldn’t you rather be predictive than reactive? CDP and automation help you with doing just that. The magic lies in harnessing, centralizing and crunching as much relevant anonymized and personal data as possible and applying it. It goes without saying that you must adhere to rights of privacy such as GDPR, the American Privacy Act, etc.  

What has been a game-changer for CDP is AI (Artificial Intelligence) and ML (Machine Learning). Both AI and ML are models that work with data you can “train” and improve.  

In my opinion, ML is currently the more relevant tool and is seen as the real industry game-changer. It’s more scientific and easier to understand from a toolset perspective which means that it is safer to apply when dealing with sensitive data. AI and ML often work side by side, each fulfilling its own function. And a great benefit is freeing up time. The marketing teams need to focus on strategy and execution rather than data handling.  

This article is aimed at describing the benefits in a simple way rather than an attempt to deep dive technically and looks at the relevant data that can help an airline (or any company) with personalization.   

A CDP is all about the following: 

• Customer intent – collecting and analysing what the customer is looking for 

• Purchase history – what is the customer buying and when? 

• Travel patterns – when does the customer typically arrive at the airport? Or visit the lounge? 

• Customer journey logs – what has happened throughout the customer’s travels? 

• Interaction with the airline – when and how does the customer contact the airline?  

• Measuring CDP value  

Customer intent  

Intent is a key component for CDPs, as it triggers actions toward the customer. Collecting and enriching data, then understanding intent (in real time, online) allows airlines to respond promptly and adequately – not too late or too early – which drastically improves the customer experience. 

Purchase history and patterns 

Personally, I limit my use of the word “behaviour” specifically because CDP doesn’t directly analyse behavioural classifications. With some regulations, this could even conflict with GDPR, as psycho-emotional data can be considered “health information” which is protected. 

CDP is all about segmenting customers, and there are various approaches that indirectly reflect behaviour but aren’t fully based on it. For example, “loyal/disloyal, at-risk of churn,” “last-minute buyer vs. early planner,” “price-driven vs. comfort-driven,” or “responsive vs. non-responsive to communication”. These create detailed customer profiles without conflicting with more sensitive information.  

It also comes down to your relationship with the customer. Would I be willing to provide more information about myself to get better offers and service? My answer is ‘yes’.  

I always buy fast track and an overhead bag, and I often buy lounge access. I would love for the airline to make me an offer such as “here is fast track and bag in hold at a 10% discount”. Suddenly, I feel seen and immediately an emotional connection is established. AI and ML are also of great help when it comes to purchase predictions, offering up suggestions based on, for example, what other passengers have bought. 

Travel patterns 

Travel is stressful, and so anything to help relieve pain is welcome. I love it when theapp messages me where my next gate is, how far it is to walk, or whether there is congestion at the airport. By knowing the type of traveller, you can alleviate pain as well as engage proactively.  

CDP can also help in identifying ‘churn’ (which means how often the passenger cancels and rebooks) and it can also predict whether you are at risk of losing the passenger and help with retention strategy.  

The journey 

Stuff happens. Flights get delayed, aircraft are changed, connections are missed, and bags are lost. By recognizing what has happened and keeping track, it is easy to say, “we apologize and here is a token of our appreciation for your patience” or “we apologize for the delay and please find attached a discount to be applied for your next trip”.  

And then there is the post trip opportunity. Leisure travel customers are inclined to book their next trip when they have just got back. It would be fantastic if you got the message to say, “Ann, we know that you want to go to Tbilisi, we have a special to Georgia in May”. But at the same time, if I have just returned from a trip where I have suffered flight delays and problems enroute I am not likely to book.  

Interactions with the airline 

Interactions with the airline are of enormous value. The last time I called an airline was to report a serious functional error and, sadly, the person I talked to sounded like he’d pay money to get rid of me as quickly as possible. It is a huge commitment for a person to take time to report something and of enormous value. It should be tracked.  

Measuring CDP value  

In my humble opinion, the quality and quantity of properly digitized customer knowledge is directly proportional to how the market might value an airline. And not only how the customers perceive the airline. If I were an investor, I’d be more inclined to invest in a company that knows its customers well and, more importantly, knows how to use that knowledge to create and deliver value. Passengers, in my view, easily pick up on these ‘vibes’ and can quickly (often subconsciously) sense whether an airline is adding value.  

CDP doesn’t have to be astronomically expensive or take an army of consultants to implement. There are solutions for all types of airlines and budgets. But don’t make the mistake of thinking that a CRM is the same as a CDP. It is far from it. My advice is that you identify what you want from a CDP. I would recommend that you consider CDP in the following areas: retail, personalization, customer service, marketing and sales.  

Start by identifying some use cases you would like to offer and areas you would like to improve. Always remember that you have enormous value in your existing customer feedback and loyalty program – leverage it.  

Another huge advantage is that travel is sexier than a hardware store and people enjoy giving feedback which is not necessarily the case with nuts and bolts!  

And lastly, has any of this anything to do with NDC? No, NDC is a messaging standard. It cannot achieve personalisation or relevant offers.  

Through Air52, Karsbergen assists airlines, airports, and industry stakeholders with practical solutions for complex challenges, drawing on his extensive background in feasibility studies, fleet and network planning, and airline startups. He also contributes to IATA training courses and serves as faculty for Aviation MBA programs.  

The views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of AeroTime.   

Imagine you’re tasked with scheduling flights for an airline. If you thought it was just a matter of matching the right plane with the right flight, prepare to be surprised. You also need to reserve time for maintenance, ensure that there are sufficient crew numbers, and crucially, make sure all airports can accommodate these flights. Welcome to the intricate world of airline scheduling and airport slot management! 

For most passengers and even some industry insiders, the process of how airlines secure the right to take off and land at specific times remains a mystery. Yet, this behind-the-scenes choreography is crucial to keeping the global aviation industry aloft. It’s a delicate balancing act that influences everything from flight schedules to ticket prices, and even airline profitability. 

So, what exactly is a slot, and why is it so important? Let’s navigate through the intriguing world of airport slot management and decode this crucial aspect of aviation operations. 

What is a slot? 

An airport slot is a permission given to an airline to use the full range of airport infrastructure necessary to operate an air service at an airport on a specific date and time. This includes the runway, taxiway, gate or stand, and terminal – the complete package an airline needs for a flight. 

But why are slots necessary? The answer lies in the remarkable growth of the aviation industry. As air travel has boomed over recent decades, many airports – especially those serving major cities – have found themselves unable to keep up. Physical constraints, environmental concerns and community opposition often limit an airport’s ability to expand. The result? Airports often find themselves in a squeeze, unable to accommodate all the flights airlines want to operate. 

This scarcity necessitates a system to allocate these valuable resources fairly and efficiently. Enter the complex world of slot management, a carefully orchestrated process to maximize airport capacity use while ensuring fair competition. 

Slots or no slots, that is the question 

When it comes to slot management, airports around the world fall into three distinct categories: 

Level 1: These airports have capacity that adequately meets demand. No coordination is required, and airlines can fly when and how often they want. 

Level 2: These airports experience some congestion at peak times, but this can be resolved through voluntary cooperation between airlines. 

Level 3: These are the most congested airports, where demand significantly exceeds capacity. Here, a formal coordination process is required. 

The classification of an airport is based on an official capacity declaration, which in turn relies on a thorough demand and capacity analysis. This analysis considers the maximum capacity of the runway(s), aircraft parking positions and terminal capacity, but also factors in airspace limitations and environmental restrictions. 

For Level 1 airports, it’s smooth sailing. Airlines simply inform airports of their planned flights. 

Level 2 airports introduce a bit more complexity. A facilitator oversees the voluntary cooperation, ensuring that planned flights don’t exceed the airport’s capacity. 

But it’s at Level 3 airports where things get really interesting. These airports work with slots, and their allocation is overseen by a Slot Coordinator. This isn’t just any role. The Slot Coordinator must be a neutral and financially independent body appointed in consultation with the airport and airlines. 

To give you an idea of the scale we’re dealing with, there are over 200 Level 3 airports worldwide, including some of the busiest hubs like London Heathrow, New York JFK and Tokyo Haneda. At these airports, securing the right slots can make or break an airline’s strategy. 

The slot allocation process: a global balancing act 

The process of allocating slots is governed by the Worldwide Slot Guidelines (WSG), as developed by the International Air Transport Association (IATA) in collaboration with airports and Slot Coordinators. These guidelines aim to ensure that slot allocation is fair, transparent, and promotes both competition and efficiency. 

The slot allocation process happens twice a year, aligning with the aviation industry’s summer and winter seasons. It’s a multi-stage process. 

1. Determination of Historic Slots: The Slot Coordinator sends each airline a list of historic or ‘grandfather right’ slots. These are slots that were allocated to the airline in the same season the previous year and which the airline has operated at least 80% of the time over that period. 

2. Slot request submission: Each airline wishing to operate flights to or from a Level 3 airport must send the Slot Coordinator their intended schedule, including the departure or arrival time, aircraft type and route. 

3. Initial slot allocation – historic slots: Slot Coordinators first allocate the historic slots to those airlines who have requested these slots again. 

4. Initial slot allocation – slot pool: Once the historic slots have been allocated, the Slot Coordinator creates a slot pool of all remaining slots. These slots are then allocated based on different criteria and evenly divided between existing and new airlines. If the requested time is not available, the Slot Coordinator can offer an alternative time. 

5. Slot conference: Once the primary slot allocation has been completed, airlines, airports and Slot Coordinators gather during the Slot Conference to discuss the allocated slots. This is an opportunity for all parties involved to make changes to their proposed operations, swap and transfer slots to optimize the operating schedule of airlines. 

The economics of slots: more valuable than gold? 

Here’s a surprising fact: airlines don’t actually pay for their allocated slots. However, airport slots, especially at major hub airports, can be incredibly valuable assets. 

In some markets, particularly in the UK and EU where secondary slot trading is allowed, slots can change hands between airlines for eye-watering sums. For instance, in 2016, Oman Air reportedly paid $75 million to Kenya Airways for a pair of early morning slots at London Heathrow. 

The value of a slot depends on various factors, including the time of day, the day of the week, and the airport’s importance as a hub. For airlines, securing the right slots can be crucial for their network strategy, allowing them to offer convenient connections and capture high-yield business traffic. 

Challenges in the slot game 

Managing airport slots is far from straightforward, and the system faces several challenges: 

Capacity constraints: As demand for air travel continues to grow, many airports are struggling to keep up. The increasing number of flights puts pressure on existing infrastructure, making efficient slot management even more crucial. 

Environmental concerns: The aviation industry is under increasing pressure to reduce its environmental impact. This has led to slot reductions at certain airports, forcing airlines to do more with less. Balancing growth with sustainability has become a key challenge in slot management. 

Balancing competition and historical rights: The current system’s emphasis on historical precedence can make it difficult for new entrants to gain a foothold at popular airports which are already operating at (almost) full capacity. This creates a tension between maintaining stability for incumbent airlines and fostering competition through new entrants. 

Regional differences: Slot management practices can vary significantly between regions due to local laws and regulations. This lack of global standardization adds complexity to slot allocation, especially for airlines operating international routes. 

What it means for passengers 

While the intricacies of slot management may seem far removed from the average traveler’s experience, they actually have a significant impact on various aspects of air travel. 

Flight schedules: The availability (or lack) of slots directly influences when and how often flights are scheduled. This can affect the convenience of travel options for passengers, potentially limiting choices for departure times or necessitating early morning or late-night flights at busy airports. 

Ticket prices: The scarcity of slots at popular airports can drive up operating costs for airlines, which may be passed on to passengers in the form of higher fares. This is particularly noticeable on routes to and from highly congested airports. 

Competition: Slot constraints can limit the ability of new airlines to enter certain markets, potentially reducing competition and choice for passengers. This can result in fewer options for travelers and potentially higher prices on certain routes. 

Lack of destinations: Airlines might favor more profitable long-haul routes over important (but less lucrative) domestic or regional connections, potentially limiting travel options. This can particularly affect passengers in smaller cities, or those seeking to travel to less popular destinations. 

Understanding these impacts can help passengers to better navigate the complexities of air travel and make more informed decisions when planning their journeys. 

The future of the slot game 

As we look to the future, efficient slot management will remain crucial to the smooth functioning of the global aviation system. The challenge will be to balance the needs of various stakeholders – airlines, airports, passengers and local communities – while also addressing growing concerns about the environmental impact of aviation. 

Innovations in technology and management practices offer the hope of squeezing more capacity out of existing infrastructure. However, the fundamental issue of how to allocate a scarce and valuable resource fairly is likely to remain a key challenge for the industry. 

For aviation enthusiasts and professionals alike, understanding the complexities of slot management offers a fascinating glimpse into the intricate machinery that keeps the global air transport system running. It’s a reminder that behind every takeoff and landing, there’s a complex dance of planning, negotiation and optimization. 

So, the next time you’re watching planes take off and land at a busy airport, spare a thought for the intricate slot management system that choreographs this aerial ballet. It might just give you a new appreciation for the complexity – and the marvel – of modern aviation. 

1. St. Moritz, Switzerland

St. Moritz, a world-renowned luxury alpine resort, remains one of the most popular winter destinations for private jet travelers.

• Private Jet Traffic: In 2022, St. Moritz’s Engadin Airport saw over 6,500 private jet movements during the winter season, particularly from the UK, Germany, and Russia.
• Exclusive Appeal: St. Moritz offers some of the most luxurious winter experiences, including high-end resorts, gourmet dining, and world-class ski slopes. The annual Snow Polo World Cup and the White Turf Horse Races on the frozen lake also attract a wealthy clientele.
• Aircraft Types: Midsize to large jets such as the Gulfstream G650 or Bombardier Global 6000 are typically used, allowing passengers to arrive comfortably from long distances.

2. Courchevel, France

Courchevel, located in the heart of the French Alps, is famous for its premium ski resorts and glamorous appeal.

• Private Jet Traffic: Courchevel Airport, with its uniquely challenging alpine runway, handles around 5,000 private jet flights during peak winter months, particularly from London, Paris, and Moscow.
• Luxury Skiing: As part of the Les Trois Vallées, Courchevel offers access to the largest ski area in the world, along with luxury chalets, Michelin-starred restaurants, and upscale shopping.
• Flight Considerations: Due to the short runway at Courchevel Airport (525 meters), only smaller aircraft such as the Pilatus PC-12 or light jets like the Citation Mustang can land directly. Larger jets must land at Chambery Airport, which saw 4,500 private jet movements in winter 2022, and passengers are then helicoptered to Courchevel.

3. Gstaad, Switzerland

Gstaad is another prestigious Swiss destination that combines luxury with world-class winter sports.

• Private Jet Traffic: The nearby Saanen Airport handles around 3,000 private jet flights annually, with winter traffic spiking between December and March.
• High-End Attractions: Gstaad is home to luxury hotels like The Alpina and Gstaad Palace, attracting celebrities, royals, and affluent visitors who enjoy both skiing and the town’s exclusive events such as the Gstaad New Year’s Gala.
• Helicopter Access: Private jet travelers also use helicopters to transfer from larger airports like Zurich, Geneva, or Bern, with an increasing number opting for helicopter services for the last leg of their journey.

4. Innsbruck, Austria

Innsbruck, situated in the Austrian Alps, is a favorite winter destination for private jet travelers who enjoy a blend of culture and alpine skiing.

• Private Jet Traffic: Innsbruck Airport saw over 2,500 private jet movements during the 2022/2023 winter season, making it one of Austria’s busiest winter hubs.
• Skiing and Beyond: Innsbruck offers access to several ski resorts such as Seefeld and the Stubai Glacier, as well as cultural experiences with its historic old town and traditional Austrian charm.
• Accessibility: Due to its central location in the Alps, Innsbruck is favored for its accessibility from major European cities like Munich and Zurich, with most private jet flights lasting under two hours.

5. Zermatt, Switzerland

Zermatt, home to the iconic Matterhorn, is a highly sought-after destination for private jet travelers looking for an upscale, scenic winter getaway.

• Private Jet Traffic: Zermatt does not have a direct airport, but Sion Airport, the closest airfield, handles approximately 1,800 private jet flights during the winter season. Travelers typically use helicopters to transfer to Zermatt, which is a car-free village.
• Luxury Skiing and Resorts: Zermatt is known for its exceptional skiing, with many of its resorts offering ski-in/ski-out accommodations, as well as access to gourmet restaurants and high-end boutiques.

6. Kitzbühel, Austria

Kitzbühel is another elite Austrian ski destination, famous for its glamorous events and world-class ski slopes.

• Private Jet Traffic: Kitzbühel is serviced by Salzburg Airport, which handles around 3,200 private jet flights during the winter months, particularly around the famous Hahnenkamm Races, one of the most prestigious downhill skiing events globally.
• Winter Sports and Events: Aside from skiing, Kitzbühel offers winter polo, exclusive après-ski venues, and luxury wellness retreats, attracting a wealthy clientele from all over Europe.

7. Verbier, Switzerland

Verbier is a popular winter retreat for Europe’s wealthy elite, known for its expansive skiing and exclusive atmosphere.

• Private Jet Traffic: Verbier’s nearest airport, Geneva International, sees substantial private jet traffic during the winter, with over 10,000 private jet movements recorded during the ski season. Helicopter transfers to Verbier are common.
• Upscale Appeal: The resort is frequented by celebrities and the ultra-wealthy, who stay in luxury chalets and enjoy high-end dining and après-ski experiences. Verbier is also known for hosting The Verbier Festival, attracting music enthusiasts alongside winter sports lovers.

Europe’s top winter private jet destinations are characterized by their exclusive appeal, luxury accommodations, and ease of access via private aviation. Whether it’s the high-end ski resorts of Switzerland, the alpine allure of Austria, or the festive charm of France, these destinations are becoming increasingly accessible to the affluent through private jet travel. The growing demand for bespoke experiences, flexibility, and convenience continues to drive private jet traffic to these winter hotspots, solidifying their status as go-to destinations for luxury winter travel.

Gavin’s previous roles have included development in British Airways, as well as consultancy projects for United Airlines, American Airlines, Qantas, and supporting the development of low-cost airlines to touristic destinations. Gavin has held a Board Position (CCO) at Portuguese airline, SATA International, and has been the advisor to the Board of Visit Portugal on air connectivity.  

As a Professor, Gavin is responsible for programs spanning the commercial aspects of aviation and airports and works closely with Aeroclass on executive courses bringing DMOs and airports together for tailored learning programs that support route development for destinations. 

Over recent decades, air travel has dramatically boosted tourism. Airports, which are obviously central to the aviation industry, have played a significant role in this. They’re more than just transit points; they now actively promote international tourism.  Airports have not only expanded travel options but have also been instrumental in developing tourist services, shaping our travel experiences. They serve as vital drivers that bring tourism to life. Join us as we explore the role of airports in tourism and connecting the world.

Gateway to adventure: The role of airports in tourism

Airports have transformed from being simply transit spots into an essential part of the tourist industry. They’re central to marketing destinations, on the understanding that concrete and runways alone won’t attract travelers and airlines. In this competitive field, airports not only serve tourists but also work to draw them in. They focus on marketing not only within the terminal, but also to airlines. They showcase a destination’s unique attractions, helping airlines to see the potential for profitable routes.

Passengers are also vitally important, as airports aim to leave a good impression and spark their curiosity. Additionally, airports play a vital role in improving the accessibility of tourist areas, acting as a crucial connection that swiftly and conveniently makes otherwise remote places accessible.

Boosting local economies: How tourism benefits from airport development

Airport development benefits tourism in several ways. Firstly, it improves accessibility by creating new routes and connections, attracting more tourists, and supporting the local tourism industry. It also enhances the first impressions of arriving tourists.  Moreover, airport development promotes airline competition, resulting in more affordable airfares, increasing demand and encouraging more tourists to visit.

Airports often become hubs for various transportation options, making travel more convenient. Economically, airport development creates jobs in construction, operation and the broader tourism sector, stimulating local economies and benefiting hotels, restaurants and cultural attractions.

Airline partnerships: How airports collaborate to improve tourist access

Collaborative efforts between airports and airlines are a cornerstone of enhancing tourist access. Their collaborative endeavors encompass diverse strategies designed to render travel more convenient, cost-effective and enjoyable for tourists.  First and foremost, such partners collaborate closely to establish new flight routes and increase the frequency of existing ones, effectively improving connectivity to favored tourist destinations. Airports often sweeten the deal for airlines with incentives like reduced landing fees and marketing support, ultimately benefiting tourists.

Joint marketing ventures are also a standard feature of airport and airline cooperation. These encompass advertising campaigns, online promotions and travel packages, all designed to simplify the planning and booking process for tourists. Through this joint effort, airports and airlines market their regions effectively and attract more visitors.

What tourism boards know that airlines want to know

Both airlines and airports have access to a great deal of data. Whether it’s from their own knowledge base or industry tools, they already know on paper whether a route will work or not. But does that tell the whole story?  Although conversations about new routes have traditionally taken place between airlines and airports, today more and more new route opportunities are being presented by the Destinations Management Organization, and such parties are becoming involved in order to increase the attractiveness of the destination to airlines.  Moreover, a new airline route ticks plenty of boxes for a tourism board too, so why wouldn’t they want to be involved in developing those routes?

Airlines know a great deal about routes and connectivity. In fact, by the time an airline comes to meet with an airport, they will almost certainly be confident that, on paper at least, the route should work. However, they are still likely to be touting for business around a number of airports, so what can tourism boards do to sway their opinion?  Plus, tourism boards are bringing great insights on potential passengers for the airline and prospective route – particularly qualitative insights on search and sentiment, and data on spending patterns and stay statistics.  As such, the tourism insights are building on the airports’ information to support a more convincing business case.

Insights at the local level are a strong proposition to carriers and need to be implemented to the case. Similarly, the international offices of the DMOs can also help with talking to the travel trade and tour operators in the source markets to understand how they would see a proposed new route connecting to the destination. So, combining past data, which is often what airports are collecting, and future insights that tourism teams hold, makes for a great mix, and indeed the two are complementary.

Building the business case to the carrier

Remember, airlines have the same access to historical data on passengers, and insights on the direct and indirect passenger numbers, that airports have. As such, what can airports and tourism boards do together that allows for synergy? ‘The whole is greater than the sum of the parts’; meaning that a business case needs to bring the historical pax trends with futuristic understanding of what is being searched, booked and reviewed. If we know what has happened, and have insights into what might be, maybe we are ahead of our airlines in what we can present as a successful business case?

Without a doubt, airlines like the historical data and numbers on direct and indirect traffic flows, but there’s no point in trying to replicate the numbers that they already have at their disposal. So, what can we offer that makes for new thinking?

• Catchment Analysis: (at the source destination) – Demographics of the potential tourists, income levels, etc., Who are you looking to attract, and what interest is this for the airline?
• Passenger traffic: (inbound to your destination) – What do you believe to be the schedule for the carrier, and why? By providing some insights into the period (all-year, summer, winter, etc.), what do you believe demand could look like?  Any potential ideas on load-factors?
• Fares analysis:  Based on the catchment and pax traffic discussion, can you provide any insights into fare levels to be achieved by the carrier? What are some of the competitor destination benchmarks, and can we share price insights from this?  What might be the difference your destination offers to carriers when they look at their average fares?
• Route Analysis:  How do you see the flight?  Mostly tourists coming from the airport destination (what we call P2P – point to point traffic), or is there potential for passengers to connect beyond the airport, via a route that has connections and feed traffic?
• Market Insights:  If a tourism route, then explain the offer – hotels, seasonality, prices, new hotel projects, etc.).  Tell the airline your story and build in a new vision of search data. How are people seeing the destination?  This section is for you to inform.

The key is to have a robust business case and ensure that both airport and destination are working together to present the offer to the carrier. This creates a unique opportunity to really sell the attractions and the benefits of the local area, which will undoubtedly help to convince that airline that selling tickets on their flights is going to be easy. Plus, the reality of serving the route is grounded in strong quantitative, as well as qualitative, insights.

This second article has tried to show how airlines and airports can work in close harmony when pushing for air services developments, plus the benefits of analysis that showcases new insights on why the carrier should fly. Next month, we will look at how airlines think – in particular, what is on their minds when considering a new route.

Understanding the time commitment of business travel

The average hours business travelers spend in the air each year vary significantly based on their roles:

• Corporate executives and frequent business travelers: Typically fly between 200 to 400 hours annually, driven by the need to attend meetings, conferences, and site visits worldwide.
• Small business owners and entrepreneurs: Average around 100 to 200 hours per year, with travel often linked to business expansion and client interactions.
• Mid-level managers and sales professionals: Fly approximately 50 to 100 hours annually, mainly for regional meetings and client visits.
• Occasional business travelers: Fly about 25 to 50 hours per year, often for specific events or quarterly meetings.

For high-frequency travelers, especially those flying 200 to 400 hours a year, the opportunity to save time by flying privately can be transformative.

How private flying saves time and money

 
Private flying offers several key advantages that can save time on every trip:

• Reduced check-in and security time: Business travelers can arrive at the airport just minutes before departure, skipping long check-in lines and security checks that are typical with commercial flights.
• Direct flights with no layovers: Private jets can fly directly to many destinations without layovers, eliminating hours wasted waiting for connections, which is particularly advantageous for hard-to-reach locations.
• Access to smaller, closer airports: Private jets can utilize smaller airports that are often closer to the traveler’s final destination, cutting down on ground transportation time.
• On-demand schedules: Private flights operate on your schedule, not the airline’s, allowing travelers to depart and return on their terms without delays.

Overall, these efficiencies can save between 2 to 5 hours per flight. For those flying 400 hours a year, this translates to saving 800 to 2,000 hours annually—equivalent to up to 2.5 months of extra time each year.

Financial savings: Turning time into money

For high-net-worth individuals, the time saved translates into significant financial value:

• Opportunity cost of time: For an executive whose time is valued at $1,000 per hour, saving 800 to 2,000 hours annually equates to a potential value of $800,000 to $2,000,000.
• Cost of private flying: Flying privately costs between $2,000 to $10,000 per flight hour, with an annual cost for 400 hours ranging from $800,000 to $4,000,000. While this may seem high, the value derived from the time saved, increased productivity, and business opportunities can outweigh these costs.
• Comparison with first-class travel: Although private flying is generally more expensive than first-class tickets, the additional time savings, enhanced privacy, and the ability to continue working uninterrupted make it a worthwhile investment for many executives and business owners.

Time is your most valuable asset

Flying privately isn’t just a luxury; for business travelers, it’s a powerful tool to reclaim lost hours, enhance productivity, and ultimately save money. By investing in private travel, executives and frequent flyers can gain up to 2.5 months of extra time each year—time that can be reinvested into their businesses, personal lives, or new opportunities. The question isn’t just how much flying privately costs, but rather, how much is your time worth? What would you do with an extra 2.5 months of time each year? The possibilities are endless, but one thing is certain: for the busiest business travelers, the value of time saved far outweighs the cost.

Gavin’s previous roles have included development in British Airways, as well as consultancy projects for United Airlines, American Airlines, Qantas, and supporting the development of low-cost airlines to touristic destinations. Gavin has held a Board Position (CCO) at Portuguese airline, SATA International, and has been the advisor to the Board of Visit Portugal on air connectivity.  

As a Professor, Gavin is responsible for programs spanning the commercial aspects of aviation and airports and works closely with Aeroclass on executive courses bringing DMOs and airports together for tailored learning programs that support route development for destinations. 

For many years the perception of the function of a national or regional tourism board (or Destination Management Company – DMO) was that such entities participate in marketing and public relations (PR). In particular, DMOs build the image of a destination and ensure that all communications are put in place to help drive tourists to visit. On top of that, a tourism board will then build a brand message and ensure that what resonates is the great imagery and associations that come to mind when thinking about a destination. With this in mind, it is apparent that not enough emphasis has been placed on the development of routes and links with airlines in the past, and network development has very much been with the destination airports’ team. 

Many of us will remember the great campaigns from India, with its ‘Incredible India’ message that flooded the media in the 90s, and New Zealand,which showcased the ‘Lord of the Rings’ filming locations as a reason to visit. Moving forward though,this is still pertinent to a destination, and marketing and communications are still a key part of the tourism board toolkit. Perhaps the shift today is to more of an online rather than off-line call to action, but that is not so different to how the great FMCG (fast moving consumer goods) product and service businesses have switched their allegiance to the online and social platforms instead of more traditional media. 

However, what is true is that DMOs must think much deeper and wider than this, in particular, they must now focus on how to attract the right airlift to a destination and build a robust connectivity culture. Why? Well, the COVID-19 pandemic allowed airlines to fundamentally change how they plan routes. From long-lead times of two to three years to starting a new route, the pandemic allowed carriers to deliver routes in less than a year, taking advantage of those markets that were open and ensuring they moved their aircraft around in a much more aligned and commercial way. While planning for three years ahead is great when we have no drama or predicted incidents, it is not such a useful way to plan assets when we can switch around and look to gain some power back from airlines. 

During and straight after the COVID-19 pandemic, airlines were looking at route development (from concept to starting) with services taking less than a year to implement.  Such new ways of working led to airlines having a new buzzword, something which came to be known as Route Experimentation – let’s see how it goes. This was not the norm for how airlines planned, but with challenges, such as knowing what was open, what we could operate, etc., the traditions of aviation were challenged. Moving on, we now see 2024 travel levels coming back stronger, and, in the eyes of the International Air Transport Association (IATA), the number of passengers carried in 2024 will be greater than carried back in 2019. Airlines are now back with a vengeance and are much more agile in how they plan and pick up on the trends and patterns around where people may be travelling. 

With this in mind, tourism boards should be listening, following and developing a set of connectivity measures. In particular, how can they get customers to fly to their destinations? New models of aviation, particularly the narrowbody aircraft that will be able to fly for up to 10 hours, allow new markets to be considered. Previously to serve with a 350+ person widebody would mean over capacity in many cases and a negative yield to the airline with their pricing. However, the vision is ‘less is more’ (fewer passengers but the potential to increase more seats if the derived demand is there), and the ability to fly people the distances of widebodies but enhancing the seat revenue of fewer seats means higher returns for all. So, how is a destination looking at international markets that have previously been ‘off-limits’ to the short distances of narrowbody aircraft, but are now well in-line with the range and scope that such new machines bring? 

To start, how is your destination set up to talk with airlines and build business cases on why they should fly to your country/region? Have you been looking at available data sources that bring both historical data (how many people have flown directly vs. how many people have flown in-direct), as well as what people are doing with booking and search activities? Search and understanding future bookings analysis are great ways that destinations can showcase to carriers the sentiment of the destination. In particular, what segments and profiles are seeking to know more and how these fit with you are targeting. The more qualitative insights that we can share with our airline partners the better; allowing for a more blended approach whereby we can correlate how the destination has performed in the past (quantitative insights) with who may visit in the future.  In particular, which customer segments are searching for the destination, and what are their interests. Such data is not currently presented by airports, so new sentiment analysis is a great opportunity for DMOs to be at the route development table and showcase that they are more than just promotion and public relations. 

So, what next for destinations? As we see airlines looking to introduce new technologies that allow for further flying with narrowbody aircraft, secondary and third level airports can start to look at new source markets that would have otherwise been off-limits. This showcases that destinations need to be much more aligned with the trends and opportunities of the aviation sector and use such thinking to create a sense of which carriers and from which markets. This allows tourism boards to be more opportunistic when making contacts within carriers to describe their destination stories, and how they see airlines engaging with DMOs as the range and scope of flight brings them closer to serving a destination. 

In conclusion, in the past, air services development was very much an airline and airport project, where the vision was all about, “so, what do you have for me? Can you offer me reductions in my landing charges, or what kick-back will I get at the end of the season if I deliver X number of passengers over what we had discussed?”. But we have moved beyond this and the importance of the DMO is now a part of the discussion in two ways. Firstly, to provide the airline with marketing support and to help ensure route success. And, secondly, the insights and sentiments that tourism brings to the business case. Knowing what tourists are looking at when studying a destination and what they are searching for is interesting for airlines as they plan their routes.   

As tourism boards become more integrated with air services development, it is paramount that such players have the key insights and knowledge to make a business case to a carrier and to fully understand the way that airlines plan their development. Gaining such insights is crucial and today’s DMOs are seeking out programs that allow the trade and strategy teams to discuss and negotiate the services needed to support the destination’s development strategy.  

Bringing insights to partners on how to build robust business cases and how to incentivise the carrier with co-marketing campaigns will be key parts of any training in air services development. This forms a strong basis for the Aeroclass’ route development programs that have been set-up to support DMO and airport personnel. Taking the teams on a journey to see how best to manage their air services is key and allows participants to really engage with why airlines should fly to a destination. 

Join Gavin next month as we look at best practices for how to support an integrated discussion with airlines. 

The views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of AeroTime.  

The main reason to engage in airline retailing is to create a better customer experience.  

Classic airline comments like “the PNR couldn’t figure out which passenger should get the upgrade” hardly make for a good customer experience. 

I can’t help but crack up when I hear “the computer says no”.  

Here’s a snapshot of typical questions customers asks themselves: 

• I’m travelling one-way and then with my mother on the return. Why doesn’t the airline know that we are travelling together?  

• Where can I see what my seat looks like?  

• I always buy the same things, why can’t they just offer me the FastTrack and the Priority boarding as a package?  

• Why do I get pointless emails about places I really don’t want to go to?  

• Why can’t I buy insurance to protect me against fare changes?  

There are many more such questions, and I could easily fill hundreds of words with them, but in essence, it all comes down to PNR-centricity- PNR being ‘Passenger Name Record’ – and the airlines’ inability to harness and utilize data. 

Airlines, just like travel agents, are using systems that are built on the PNR, the structure for which was designed in the 60s. If I were to detail all the constraints with the PNR, we’d end up with a very long list.  

The PNR is simply not able to handle a reservation where a mother and son travel together, but one stays and one travels back.  These reservations must be in separate PNRs and typically there is no glue to associate them. That glue is essential if you want to do retailing. I typically call that glue OMS – Order Management System – but you can call it whatever you like: ‘orchestration’, ‘glue’ or for that matter ‘thingamabob’. 

Another PNR constraint is that it is purged and dies, meaning that you need other systems to keep the information alive, which is essential to retailing – keeping track of where the customer has travelled and what products the customer has purchased.  

I think these examples suffice to explain why you must move away from a PNR-centric environment. That said, this doesn’t mean that you must get rid of the PNR entirely. You just need to take a different approach and manage it differently.  

Returning to those questions that customers are asking:  

Q: I’m travelling alone one way and with my mother on a return. Why doesn’t the airline know that we are travelling together?  

A: You need to have glue, and these two passengers should be in the same order.  

Q: Where can I see what my seat looks like?  

A: You need to integrate a system that can display visuals, and for this, you also need glue.  

Q: I always buy the same stuff, why can’t they just offer me the FastTrack and the Preboard as a package?  

A: Offering bundles and discounts is one of the biggest value-adds within retailing – it engages your customers and makes them feel seen. This is basic functionality of an OMS (aka ‘glue’). The simple offer saying “you always book FastTrack and Priority boarding, so we’ll offer you a bundle of the two with a 15% discount” will result in one happy customer.  

Q: Why do I get meaningless emails about places I don’t want to go to?  

A: Because the airline is not using a CDP (Customer Data Platform) or else is not utilizing its CRM properly. While the airlines’ loyalty programs are one of their biggest assets, the customer data is limited. You can make it easy for the customers to share their interests and needs.  For this you need a CDP/CRM, which the glue can integrate. What you want to achieve is:  

“We’ve noticed that you have travelled to Miami eight times, would you Ike to go again?”  

“Here’s a great offer to go to Athens with a 15% hotel discount”.  

Q: Why can’t I buy insurance to protect me against fare changes?  

A: Airlines are bound by standards defined in the fare structure. To me, this structure contains several products and insurance against fare changes isn’t one of them. Various insurance products can be created using glue, such as ‘cancel for any reason’.  

It is a known fact that customers will always pay for true value-adds.  

There are many opportunities for compelling retailing and it’s as simple as listening to your customers, what they like and dislike. Don’t mess with the basics: families with children need to sit together.  

An OMS is also, to a degree, a Content Management System, if you are selling third-party products mixed with your own. You must be able to manage and control your product content mix. All product content sold should be reflected in the Order. And remember, unlike the PNR, the Order doesn’t die.  

When working with Orders you can identify previous purchases, which enables better and more accurate marketing to your customers. Curated offers are where the customer feels seen and that wins loyalty. I also recommend that you investigate travel wallets, easily coupled with loyalty, to expedite refunds and reward customers more quickly.  

So, how do you get started? The following steps are a good guideline: 

1. Listen to what your customers want and need. 
2. Find people in your airline who are interested and who follow what is happening out there. Alternatively, bring in advisors with expertise in the area.  

3. Create a customer-focused organisation within your airline. Don’t just focus on products. 

4. Start looking at systems who do ‘glue’. Alternatively, start thinking about how you can build ‘glue’. 

5. Define a clear vision of where you want to be and identify clearly what you currently have. Do you have a CDP/CRM? What are their capabilities? How do you integrate third parties? Do you need somebody to integrate for you?  

Get started. It’s not that hard. You don’t require massive changes, or for that matter a transformation of all systems.  Take the first step, move away from PNR-centricity and treat it just like any other reservation. 

Through Air52, Karsbergen assists airlines, airports, and industry stakeholders with practical solutions for complex challenges, drawing on his extensive background in feasibility studies, fleet and network planning, and airline startups. He also contributes to IATA training courses and serves as faculty for Aviation MBA programs. 

The views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of AeroTime.  

Picture this: you’ve just booked what seems like a simple trip, only to find yourself juggling multiple airline names, deciphering various flight numbers, and trying to make sense of conflicting baggage policies. Sound familiar? Welcome to the fascinating world of interline and codeshare agreements. 

These partnerships often leave passengers scratching their heads, yet they’re a goldmine for airlines. They represent a clever way for carriers to expand their reach and boost profits without the hefty costs of operating more routes or having extra planes.  

But what’s really going on behind the scenes? Why do airlines love these arrangements so much? And how do they manage to be both a source of passenger puzzlement and a key to airline profitability? Let’s unravel this aviation enigma. 

Decoding agreements  

To decode these agreements, let’s start with some aviation basics. For every flight we identify: 

• The Operating Carrier (OC): The airline flying the plane. 

• The Marketing Carrier (MC): The airline selling the flight under its code. 

• The Validating Carrier (VC): The airline issuing the ticket, also known as the Ticketing Carrier. 

In an ideal world, all three roles would be played by the same airline. Imagine booking a United flight, on a United plane, with a United-issued ticket. Simple, right?  

But the aviation world is rarely that straightforward. Enter interline and codeshare agreements, and suddenly this simplicity vanishes like a contrail in the sky. These partnerships add layers of complexity to airline operations and can leave passengers feeling like they need a decoder ring to understand their itinerary. 

So why do airlines embrace this complexity? And how do these agreements work in practice?  

Interline agreements are like a handshake between airlines, allowing them to accept passengers with tickets issued by their partners. It’s all based on the Multilateral Interline Traffic Agreement (MITA), a set of rules overseen by IATA that govern the principles of these partnerships. 

Here’s where it gets interesting for passengers: interline agreements mean you can book a single ticket for a journey involving multiple airlines. For example, you might buy a British Airways ticket from London to Bogota via Madrid, with the Madrid-Bogota leg operated by Iberia. One ticket, two airlines, and hopefully, a seamless journey. 

Sounds great, right? Well, mostly. These agreements offer some fantastic perks for travelers: 

• More destinations and routes to choose from 

• Often lower fares than booking separate tickets 

• Protection if you miss a connection due to a delay 

But there’s a catch. Interline agreements can also lead to some head-scratching moments: 

• Inconsistent baggage policies between airlines 

• Different check-in processes and deadlines 

• Confusion about which airline to contact when things go wrong 

A win-win for airlines 

For airlines, though, it’s a win-win. They get to expand their network and potentially boost frequencies on existing routes without the need for extra planes, crew, or those precious airport slots. It’s like having your cake and eating it too – more reach, more passengers, all without the usual hefty costs. 

And even better, by adding new destinations to their network, interlining allows airlines to carry passengers who would otherwise never have flown with them. Let’s go back to our London to Bogota example. Since British Airways (BA) doesn’t fly to Bogota, without the interline agreement, that passenger would never have flown BA. But with the agreement in place, BA gets the revenue for the London to Madrid leg, and Iberia picks up the Madrid to Bogota portion. It’s like they’re playing a game of aviation tag-team! 

In fact, before the pandemic shook things up, IATA estimated that interline travel was bringing in a whopping $52 billion in annual revenue for the industry. That’s a lot of motivation to keep these partnerships flying high! 

Now, just when you thought you had a handle on interline agreements, along come codeshares to add another layer of complexity. Codeshare agreements are like interline agreements on steroids. They allow airlines to slap their code on flights operated by their partners.  

Imagine this: You book an Air France flight from Paris to New York. Simple enough, right? But wait! That same flight is also being sold by Delta as a Delta flight and by KLM as a KLM flight. Three different flight numbers, one actual plane. It’s enough to make your head spin! 

For passengers, this can be a real head-scratcher. You might book what you think is a Delta flight, only to find yourself on an Air France plane with Air France crew. Suddenly, you’re not sure whose baggage policy applies or whose frequent flyer program you should be claiming miles with. 

But for airlines, codeshares are like striking gold. They offer even more benefits than interline agreements: 

• Better visibility in reservation systems (hello, more bookings!) 

• A presence in markets they don’t fly to 

• The chance to piggyback on their partners’ brand recognition 

• Some nifty cash flow advantages 

These partnerships let airlines dramatically expand their reach without the eye-watering costs of new routes. They can fill seats that might otherwise fly empty, maximizing their revenue potential across a broader network. It’s a strategy that allows airlines to grow their market presence without the massive investments typically associated with expansion, or where prevented from doing so by laws and regulations. 

But the world of airline partnerships is evolving faster than you can say “fasten your seatbelts”. The industry is constantly changing, driven by new consumer expectations and technological advancements. 

Remember when your airline ticket included everything but the kitchen sink? Well, the rise of Low-Cost Carriers (LCCs) changed all that. They introduced “unbundling,” letting passengers pick and pay for only the services they want. Great for travelers, but a big challenge for those decades-old interline and codeshare concepts that weren’t designed for this a la carte approach. 

A radical overhaul  

To keep up, the industry is going through a radical overhaul of distribution concepts. New Distribution Capability (NDC) and OneOrder are two big initiatives aimed at dragging airline distribution systems into the 21st century. The goal? Among others, enabling more flexible and customer friendly interline and codeshare arrangements. It’s like giving the whole system a major upgrade. 

And just when you thought it couldn’t get any more interesting, along comes “virtual interlining”. This new kid on the block is shaking things up in a big way. From a passenger’s perspective, it looks just like a traditional interline ticket. You book what seems to be a seamless journey with connecting flights. But here’s the twist: behind the scenes, you’re buying two separate tickets, plus an insurance policy. 

This insurance is the secret sauce of virtual interlining. It’s there to compensate you if you miss your connection. Remember how with traditional interlining, airlines are obligated to get you to your final destination if you miss a connection due to a delay? Virtual interlining recreates this protection, but through insurance rather than airline agreements. 

Worldwide by easyJet has been pioneering this approach since 2017. What’s really exciting is that virtual interlining isn’t just connecting low-cost carriers. It’s also creating connections between budget airlines and traditional network carriers. It’s like breaking down the barriers between different airline business models.  

In addition, the industry has recognized that interline agreements go above and beyond the traditional and highly standardized airline-airline model. Other partnerships and customized agreements, including intermodal, should be supported. The industry is therefore moving to more customized arrangements, including ancillary revenues and different settlement conditions. To facilitate these changes, the Standard Retailer and Supplier Interline Agreement (SRSIA) has been drafted. 

An intricate web of partnerships  

So, what’s the takeaway from all this? Interline and codeshare agreements aren’t going anywhere. They might keep confusing passengers for a while yet, but they’re just too profitable for airlines to give up. The challenge will be finding ways to keep these partnerships humming along while making things smoother for passengers. 

For aviation geeks like us, all these developments are like watching a thrilling movie. They give us a peek into the complex, fascinating world of airline economics and operations. As passengers, understanding these agreements can help us navigate the sometimes-baffling world of air travel a bit better. And if you’re in the industry? Mastering these partnerships while keeping passengers happy will be key to staying ahead in the ultra-competitive aviation game. 

So next time you’re booking a flight and find yourself puzzling over airline codes or connection policies, remember that behind all that complexity is a web of partnerships that keeps the global aviation industry in the air. It might be confusing, but it’s amazing when you think about it. After all, it’s these intricate agreements that allow us to jet off to virtually any corner of the globe.  

Few other topics are currently being discussed as intensively and emotionally as the “ecological footprint” of various transportation systems, usually reduced to more or less correct figures on CO2 and NOx emissions. Such discussions often result in highly simplified statements such as “taking the train is environmentally friendly”, “driving a car is harmful to the environment” and “flying is even more harmful”.

The fact that an appropriate evaluation is much more complex and that it is not sufficient to measure only the exhaust gases at the tailpipe in order to take the environmental aspect adequately into account will be illustrated in this study. Previous approaches to assessing and comparing greenhouse gases (GHG) emissions in a broader context have primarily aimed to include not only short-term emissions but also their long-term climate impact. The approach described here aims to evaluate transport sector emissions holistically, including ALL necessary infrastructure components. Emissions that so far have been attributed to “industry” or “the construction sector” are now attributed to the specific transportation system and assigned to the respective transportation service provided, as long as they are directly related to the provision of that service. For example, large amounts of steel and aluminum are needed in the construction of trains, cars or airplanes, concrete and steel in the construction of roads, bridges, tunnels, runways. If the cause-effect relationship of each transportation system is appropriately taken into account, the energy consumption and pollutants produced by concrete and steel for highway bridges must be allocated to the energy and pollutant balance of the road transport mode; if the structures are railroad bridges or tunnels, they must be allocated accordingly to railway transportation, and the concrete for airport runways must be added to the balance of the aviation transport system. This approach is very complex, but even a few examples prove that it is not sufficient at all to measure only the direct exhaust gases at the tailpipe in order to take adequate account of the environmental aspect.

For the four major transport systems – road, railway, air and water – Table 1 shows which components the respective systems require to provide a transport service.

Table 1: The four basic transport systems and their respective necessary components

Each of these systems requires an actual means of transport, i.e., cars, trains, aircraft and ships. Likewise, all systems require their own specific infrastructure, which can be divided into a “node” infrastructure (train stations, airports, ports, parking lots, etc.), a “route” infrastructure (road network, railway network, waterways, etc.) and a “control” infrastructure (signal boxes, signal systems, traffic lights, traffic signs, air traffic control systems, lighthouses, buoys, etc.). Furthermore, the table lists the energy sources for the propulsion of the respective means of transport.

To be clear from the outset: Not all the figures that would be necessary to correctly determine the CO2 footprint of an individual airport or the entire railway or highway network that has already incurred in the construction are available or even known. Until a few decades ago, CO2 was considered a naturally occurring, non-toxic, invisible and odorless gas to which no real relevance was attached. It was only about 20 years ago that awareness of the greenhouse gas effect of CO2 was first raised.

However, this important and correct change in perception and assessment now even more needs to be adequately considered in current and future decisions on mobility and transportation systems.

In the industrial field, the largest energy consumers and CO2 emitters include the steel industry, aluminum and copper production, and the cement and concrete industries. To produce one ton (1,000 kg) of steel in a blast furnace, around twenty gigajoules (GJ) of energy are required, equivalent to around 5,600 MWh (megawatt hours). Since the energy for steel production comes primarily from (fossil) coke (coal), the production of one ton of crude steel generates more than 2 tons of CO2. This is only the energy and pollutant balance from the blast furnace and coke plant process; everything else that occurs in the rolling mill or during further refinement of the raw material steel must still be added in each case. The carbon footprint for aluminum or copper are even more negative than for steel; depending on the primary energy used, between eight and 12 metric tons of CO2 are emitted to produce one ton of pure aluminum, for copper it’s more than six tons on average, with a rather large span depending on the production method.

Contrary to widespread belief, rail travel is by no means environmentally friendly when viewed from a holistic system perspective. The tunnel- and bridge-intensive routes for high-speed trains in particular cause millions of tons of CO2 during construction, which is primarily due to the huge quantities of steel, concrete and copper required. One kilometer of track alone requires 120 tons of rail steel, for which 240 tons of CO2 have already been emitted in the blast furnace and coking plant process alone. For high-speed lines, the amount of CO2 per PKM is often in the three-digit gram range from the construction of the line alone!

Ultimately, it is always necessary to look at the total amount of CO2 produced, taking into account all infrastructure components and the transport volume provided over time. Transport volume is measured in PKM (person kilometer) or TKM (ton kilometer). Motorized Individual Traffic (MIT) in Germany amounts to around 967 billion PKM per year, that of rail transport to around 96 billion PKM; in other words, 10 times as many PKM result from car travel compared to train travel!

“Simple truths” such as those mentioned at the beginning of this text collapse like a house of cards in a draught when viewed holistically. When has it ever been pointed out that the CO2 emissions from the production of an average car alone account for 33 grams of CO2 for every PKM driven, which must be added to the average 85 grams of CO2 from the exhaust pipe? In the case of electric vehicles, the production-related CO2 impact is currently even higher, as battery production is still very CO2-intensive. The background to these enormous “hidden burdens” per PKM is above all the incredible inefficiency of motorized individual transport (MIT). With an average driving time of just one hour per day (the car is parked for 23 hours and requires parking space) and an average utilization of just 1.5 of the five available spaces, this results in a calculated utilization efficiency of 1.25%. If such poorly used cars with combustion engines are replaced by equally poorly used electric vehicles thanks to state subsidies of up to 9,000 euros, this may help the automotive industry, but it does nothing to reduce CO2 emissions.

The distortions in public perception become even more drastic when the construction of the infrastructure is taken into account. High-speed rail lines in particular, which are mainly made of concrete, steel and copper and often run through very long tunnels and over high valley bridges, cause millions of tons of CO2 during construction. The blanket statement that rail travel is environmentally and especially climate-friendly can therefore only be dismissed as a “spinach fallacy” of the 21st century, because a false statement does not become correct through constant repetition. (For decades in the 20th century, “experts” repeatedly claimed that spinach was a vegetable particularly rich in iron. This statement was based on a miscalculation or decimal point error in the first scientific analysis around 1890. After that, this false claim was only ever copied and quoted. It was not until 1981 that this myth was “debunked”.)

For the aviation transportation system, the table above shows another important finding: for the transportation systems of aviation, the ecological and economic costs of route infrastructure are zero. The air between two airports never needs to be built or maintained. This has a significant impact on the overall ecological balance of the transportation systems. (By the way, the same is true for shipping across the oceans.)

Looking at the table and all relevant systems components show, how important it is to have a system-oriented view when assessing, comparing and discussing ecological footprints of transport systems.

Mobility is complex. Mono-causal thinking does not provide any solutions.

It is definitely possible to save tens of millions of tons of CO2 every year in the mobility sector without anyone having to give up their usual level of mobility. The decisive lever for this is more efficient mobility, rather than simply ignoring CO2 emissions caused by the construction and maintenance of transport infrastructure in the calculation does not help anyone, let alone the climate.

Objectively speaking, it is neither justified nor helpful to demonize certain means of transport and hail others as the solution to all future problems. There is an urgent need to think holistically across the entire process chain, to keep an eye on all the necessary infrastructure components and to consider complex cause-and-effect relationships without ideological blinkers.

A non-ideological open-mindedness towards new findings, processes, methods and technologies is absolutely essential in order to avoid always being on “well-trodden paths” in the future. The discussion on the mobility concepts for the future must be consistently objectified across all boundaries and be based on scientific principles and what is technically feasible. Emotions and ideologies and the categorical adherence to what has proved successful in the past but is more of a hindrance in the future will not get us any further in this important debate.

For twenty years or more, electrifying everything has been at the top of climate change action plans. Mark Z. Jacobson’s 100% Renewables by 2050 modeling has spelled out the climate, air quality and economic advantages globally. Thought leaders including Saul Griffith, Hans-Josef Fell, Fatih Birol, and Mark Diesendorf from have been focused on this key solution as well.

It’s at the top of my Short List of Climate Actions That Will Work As Well. And it’s true across the transportation segment as well. All ground transportation — except for tiny niches like vintage cars — will be grid tied or battery electric. Bulk shipping will plummet with peak fossil fuel demand and batteries will power all inland and most short sea shipping, and biodiesel will power the rest.

But what about aviation? Those aluminum pressurized tubes hurtling through the air, 38,000 feet high, at a significant portion of the speed of sound, carrying hundreds of souls destined for work and play around the world?

Aviation is an outsized source of greenhouse gas emissions, but that’s not only due to burning kerosene. It also creates contrails, those evocative dual cloud strips in the sky, one of twenty of which are global warming disasters. And anything burned in our nitrogen-rich atmosphere creates laughing gas — nitrous oxide — which isn’t funny at all when we consider that it is 273 times more potent a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. A little goes a long way, and while ammonia fertilizer for agriculture is the worst nitrous oxide emissions offender, aviation contributes as well.

A common refrain from the aviation industry is that batteries aren’t fit for purpose for aviation. That’s inaccurate. They aren’t fit for all aviation purposes and will lead to business model and route changes, but they will be a much bigger part of aviation decarbonization than most analysts suppose.

How do we read this graph? What does it tell us?

The first thing is that COVID-19 was a discontinuity in aviation growth and a fundamental transformer of the market. The 2019 to 2020 plunge in flights was real. It didn’t recover much in 2021 or 2022, not nearly as much as aviation marketers pretended. In a year or two, the post-COVID picture will be clearer and I’ll update this.

The second thing is that growth projections for aviation from the industry are not realistic. IATA and Boeing are projecting over 4% compounded annual growth for the next 20 years, and that’s not supported by anything other than pre-COVID curves projected linearly into the future. The extraordinarily rapid growth from the 1980s to 2019 was fueled by extraordinary changes in the global economy, but that period has come to an end.

The reasons for flatter demand are systemic transformations in our global economy. They include China’s transportation patterns, the end of China’s massive, double-digit growth, slower growth of non-China developing economies, peak population, remote work, increased costs of flights and more.

Is my projection of flatter growth accurate? No, of course not. The error bars are large. I will be off, likely by increasing amounts, with each decade. As with all my scenarios, all I assert is that they are less wrong than other projections.

Batteries, even in my battery-pessimistic scenario, will be sufficient for 70% of flights. Three-quarters of flights average 3,000 kilometers or less, and with silicon battery energy densities and hybrid SAF generators, 3,000 kilometers range with divert and reserve is achievable by 2040. Battery electric aviation will always have materially lower operation and maintenance costs, so any routes that can electrify, will electrify. This is an empirically proven truism, so repeat it to yourself regularly: anything that can electrify, will electrify.

I discussed earlier iterations of the aviation scenario with global experts on aviation demand, aerospace engineers and battery technologists. As I look back on my first version from three years ago, it hasn’t changed significantly. I have normalized the units to tons of kerosene to align with the maritime shipping scenario, and added the battery pessimistic scenario.

Peak fossil kerosene in 2030 will be below 2019 levels, or if not, so close to them as to be indistinguishable. The days of fossil fuel demand growth from aviation are over. There is room to remove fossil fuels from the mix more aggressively, something I’ll reserve as a consideration for future versions.

Sustainable aviation biofuels will dominate the next couple of decades of decarbonization. Biases against biofuels were fed by inadequate solutions and issues in the 2000s, but those biases will continue to fade. Modern biofuels will be made mostly but not always from waste biomass from our agriculture, food, lumber and livestock industries. 

There’s more than enough waste biomass for long haul aviation and shipping requirements, which in my scenarios including this battery pessimistic scenario only add up to 180 million tons of diesel or kerosene annually. There are no land use or food concerns in an electrification heavy world, one where ground transportation, the vast majority of heating and electrical generation consume no fossil fuels. 

There will be large pockets that are slower to accept this, for example the European Union, which is explicitly against crop-based biofuels but considers pelletizing forests for thermal electrical generation to be low-carbon. These will pass with time.

Battery electric aviation will eat the aviation market from the bottom. Regional air mobility will see fixed wing, conventional take off and landing pure electric and hybrid electric planes activating the thousands of smaller commercial airports that are underused. The useful parts of advanced air mobility — autonomous flight and digital air traffic control — will enable cargo and then passenger flights with even lower operational costs.

Origami electric rotorcraft like Joby and Archer will fail and much simpler electric rotorcraft scaling up from the drone market will continue to displace the helicopter market, taking more and more lifting burdens from crewed helicopters. That’s occurring today, with UAVs inspecting bridges, acting as aerial photography platforms, seeding and spraying fields, reforesting rugged terrain, carrying solar panels to hillside mounts and ferrying medical supplies to remote villages. 

Volocopter, while at least avoiding the worst design excesses of the space, still failed to launch its one-passenger, zero-luggage curiosity ride at the Paris Olympics, something the rest will experience over and over again until investors’ money is gone. Simple passenger rotorcraft will be viable in the late 2030s, but none of the current entrants in the space will be around.

Each decade will surprise us again with battery advances. This year saw battery energy densities from CATL and others that serious analysts thought wouldn’t be on the market until 2050. It also saw battery prices below US$100 per kWh with CATL’s price list having lithium iron phosphate (LFP) batteries at $56 per kWh for fourth quarter delivery. Sub-$100 prices weren’t expected until 2030, and although LFP batteries aren’t suitable for aviation, that’s a clear signal that prices will continue to plummet as energy densities continue to climb.

In my battery-optimistic scenario transoceanic electric passenger flight will be viable starting in 2070. After that, a 30 year process of replacement of aircraft with engines with truly zero carbon equivalent, low noise battery electric drive trains would occur.

Sharp eyes studying the projection through 2100 will have noticed that hydrogen is a fraction of everything else, as well as the lack of synthetic Jet-A kerosene, with only biokerosene in the mix.

The hydrogen demand curve is simple. Biofuels need hydrogen as part of their processing for hydrotreating and hydrogenation. The amounts aren’t huge, with HEFA requiring 36 kilograms per ton of biofuel for example. Most of the hydrogen and carbon energy in the kerosene will come from the biomass we use to make them, provided by nature’s beneficence. Hydrogen is an industrial feedstock for biofuels, not an energy contributor. Aviation is already bunkering millions of tons of SAF biofuels, with Neste alone providing 1.5 million tons to Changi Airport in Singapore.

Hydrogen is a dead end as an aviation fuel. Gaseous hydrogen is far too low energy density by volume to provide any range. There is no path to certification for liquified hydrogen at 20° above absolute zero in the fuselage with human beings. There is no path to balancing center of gravity with liquified hydrogen inside a narrow body fuselage as it is consumed, so planes that flew any distance would nose down and fall out of the sky. The logistical complexity and cost of liquified hydrogen in aviation quantities in airports precludes its use.

As for synthetic fuels made from electrolyzed hydrogen and carbon captured from somewhere? Much more expensive than biofuels or batteries, so they just won’t be purchased, exactly as with maritime shipping, never mind fully electrified ground transportation. The International Energy Agency’s late 2023 update on e-fuels makes that clear, with costs for e-kerosene 5-6 times that of current Jet-A prices, and double biokerosene SAFs.

What about contrails? Flight path alterations driven by improved sensor sets and AI will negate the small percentage of contrails with the greatest global warming impacts.

This leaves nitrous oxides from jet biofuels as the remaining but much diminished concern. For the 70% of flights which will be battery electric even in the pessimistic scenario,  emissions of nitrous oxides will not occur. The battery optimistic scenario would eliminate all contrails and nitrous oxide emissions.

Aviation will not grow nearly as quickly as it has in the past. Batteries and biofuels, in hybrid powertrain, fixed-wing aircraft will be quiet, low-carbon, low-maintenance and low-cost solutions to the remaining challenge. And the biokerosene all major manufacturers are certifying on today will bridge existing airframes and keep us crossing oceans. 

On a global scale, business aviation contributes massively to economic productivity. The General Aviation Manufacturers Association (GAMA) reported that in 2021, the industry generated over $276 billion in total economic output worldwide. This figure not only includes direct contributions from manufacturers, operators, and support services but also indirect and induced impacts, resulting from supply chain spending and expenditures by industry employees.

Further highlighting the scale of the industry, as of 2021, there were approximately 22,000 business jets in operation worldwide.

Business aviation also supports a significant number of jobs globally. As of the same report, it was responsible for more than 1.7 million jobs, encompassing direct, indirect, and induced employment. These are high-quality, well-paying jobs that span a multitude of roles, from engineers and pilots to service staff and administrative professionals.

In Europe, business aviation is an equally significant economic driver. According to the European Business Aviation Association (EBAA), the industry contributed €87 billion ($103 billion) to the European Union’s GDP in 2020. Additionally, it supported over 374,000 jobs, demonstrating its critical role in the region’s economic health. Europe is also home to around 3,500 business jets, reinforcing its substantial role in the business aviation landscape.

Moreover, Europe has been at the forefront of advancing the environmental sustainability of business aviation, which in turn stimulates innovation and economic growth in the green technology sector.

The future of business aviation is promising. Research conducted by the consultancy firm Oxford Economics forecasts steady growth for the industry over the next decade. The global fleet of business aircraft is expected to grow by approximately 60% by 2030, which could increase total economic output to over $400 billion and support nearly 2.5 million jobs worldwide.

In Europe, the projected growth is equally optimistic. The EBAA anticipates the European business aviation market to grow by around 3% annually, potentially leading to a cumulative increase in GDP contribution to over €100 billion ($118 billion) by 2030.

In essence, the business aviation industry is an unsung hero in the broader economic narrative. Its substantial contribution extends far beyond the confines of the airport, permeating various sectors of the economy. As we navigate the new normal post-pandemic, the role of business aviation as an economic catalyst will be more critical than ever. Understanding and acknowledging its economic impact can pave the way for policies and strategies that further leverage its potential, driving economic growth and prosperity in the years to come.

How corporate jet utilization works  

Using corporate jets to fly varies from operational functions and executive travel. But its chief use case is in providing a platform for private meetings between startups and investors at institutions. Usually held in conjunction with roadshows, these face-to-face meets are where company executives can speak directly to major shareholders. The study identifies two major categories of roadshows: 

1. Money Center Roadshow: flights to key financial centers such as Boston, Chicago, New York, and San Francisco. 

2. Non-MC Roadshow: Flights required to cities that have a large nonfirm-specific institutional ownership; however, not money center locations. 

Using data on almost 400,000 flights and building proxies to capture these unobservable private meetings, the researchers studied their effect on stock returns, analyst behavior (forecasts), as well as institutional activity. In summary, private meetings result in abnormal returns and make changes in the trading volume of the market. 

Market reactions to private meetings  

Abnormal Returns and Trading Volume Roadshow windows featured even higher ASAR and Turnover than their flight activities, in abnormal absolute size-adjusted returns (ASAR) and the rest of the market-neutral share turnover concepts. So these private meetings during those roadshows are a great qualitative way to round out the trading spectrum, both for investors needing better insight on their privates and for you making subsequent trades. Cash center roadshows saw a 4.0% greater relative abnormal profits and a 3.6% boost in share turnover as well, for example of this. The fact that the market reacts in this way shows something important: These meetings contain real information – albeit trifling when aggregated across all attendees compared to normal economic releases, but enough so there is some influence on the behavior of trading, not just gossiping. 

Signed returns were positive  

Elsewhere, the study found that signed returns were overwhelmingly positive in roadshow windows. That would suggest that executives mostly conduct them when they think their stock is undervalued, in an attempt to provide investors with the sort of positive signaling information. This is reinforced by also observing that there are no abnormal return reversals in subperiods following the roadshows, thus suggesting market adjustments during those windows rather than short-term hype. 

Impact on analyst forecast activity  

Part and parcel with making Wall Street analysts available to sit-down face-to-face with a company’s senior executives is the corporate jet. These roadshows are in financial hubs, so afford more opportunities for analysts to meet a company – and lead (as illustrated on the chart below) to subsequent forecast activity from those same analysts. Results of the study confirmed a positive relation between money center roadshows and new analyst forecasts, suggesting that these meetings function as an information conduit to analysts for them to re-evaluate their assessments. Non-money center roadshows, on the other hand, did not have significant higher analyst forecast revisions so one can infer that those flights are probably less about meetings with analysts and more purely investor communication. 

Changes in institutional ownership and trading gains  

Local ownership: The roadshow flights are shown to be driving increases in local institutional ownership. This suggests that these private meetings do indeed generate new institutional investment decisions for money center roadshows. Non-money center roadshows experienced more significant trading in and out as markets factored in the different interpretation of information presented at these meetings. Certainly, not all of the team roving trading gains were massive, though positive on an overall level while some they would say certainly loomed large. Money center roadshows led to significant trading gains for firms with more complex information environments and those that did not meet investors very frequently before, but no gains for the average firm. This is consistent with the view that private meetings are most valuable when insight into a firm’s prospects hinges on nuanced and granular information. 

Regulatory and market implications 

The results are important for regulation. Since these meetings are behind closed doors, the vast majority of investors who represent their clients do not know that such a thing is happening. All of this casts a shadow over the idea that markets should – and let’s face it, could ever really be said to – operate on level playing field terms. As part of the proof in these cases, perhaps regulators should be evaluating not just individual selective disclosures or private meetings, but also more broadly what this information asymmetry means for market integrity. Corporate jets help make worse investment decisions – corporate leaders might use their planes for private meetings with money managers and analysts, thereby transitioning from the light of public scrutiny into shadow. These meetings serve as a platform for qualitative information exchange, which will, in turn, affect how the stock market reacts and cause knock-on effects on analyst activities as well as institution trading behaviors. The economic magnitudes of those effects may be relatively minor, because the meetings are private; nevertheless, what these privileged investors gain in access underscores why it is worth keeping a vigilant watch over them and potentially adjusting regulation to ensure fairness for all shareholders. 

Trends of the Week: 

Overall, global business jet and turboprop sectors are 2% ahead of November 2022 and 16% ahead compared to four years ago. Specifically focusing on business jets, activity this month is 1% ahead of last year and 19% ahead of four years ago. For Week 47, business jet flights globally were up by 6% compared to the same period last year. However, year-to-date global business jet activity is trailing last year by 4%, although it’s 19% ahead of 2019. 

Busiest Aircraft: The Embraer Phenom 300 emerges as the busiest aircraft type within European fractional fleets, with activity surpassing any November in the last four years. 

Regional Highlights: 

Europe: Business jet flights in Europe are 7% fewer than November last year and slightly below November 2019. The busiest fractional bizjet operator airport pair is Paris Le-Bourget to Farnborough. 

North America: Business jet activity is 3% above last year and 19% ahead of four years ago. Washington Dulles shows significant growth in bizjet activity, being the busiest for fractional operators. 

United States: During the Thanksgiving holiday, business jet activity dropped 18% compared to the previous week. Light Jets and Super Midsize were the busiest aircraft types. The busiest airport pair was West Palm Beach to Teterboro. 

Asia: Business jet activity is 4% below last year but 45% ahead of 2019. The majority of flights are under 90 minutes, which are 13% below last November. 

Middle East: Activity has fallen 13% compared to last November but is 40% ahead of four years ago. Corporate Flight Department fleets are flying less than any November in the last four years. 

In summary, the business aviation sector is exhibiting robust growth and resilience, with global activity slightly ahead of last year and significantly surpassing figures from four years ago. The Embraer Phenom 300’s prominence in Europe, the surge in North American business jet activity, and the fluctuating trends in Asia and the Middle East paint a diverse and dynamic picture of the industry. As we move towards the end of the year, these trends not only reflect the current state of business aviation but also hint at the evolving preferences and operational patterns within the sector. With an eye on the future, the industry continues to adapt and thrive, signaling a positive outlook for business aviation globally. 

North American Highlights

North America, led by the US, has consistently outperformed its last year’s figures, with a notable 22% increase over 2019. The region has seen a surge in demand for large cabin and super midsize aircraft. For instance, Teterboro Airport, a key hub for business aviation, reported a 6% increase in super midsize jet activity compared to last year. Fractional operators in Las Vegas showed an impressive 85% increase in flights over November 2022, highlighting the region’s growth.

European Dynamics

Europe’s business aviation sector, in contrast, is experiencing a downturn, with activity 13% lower than last year and slightly trailing behind 2019. Major airports like Le Bourget and Geneva have seen significant declines in flight numbers. The Cessna Citation Excel, typically a popular choice, reported 20% fewer sectors than last year. However, the Citation Latitude showed resilience, flying more short-haul flights than any previous November in the last four years.

Asia and Middle East Trends

Asia’s business aviation sector is holding steady, with a 6% increase in activity compared to last year and a remarkable 50% leap from 2019. In the Middle East, despite a 6% year-over-year decline, the sector is 47% ahead of 2019. Al Maktoum International Airport in Dubai is a standout, surpassing its last year’s activity by 4%.

Aircraft and Airline Spotlight

The super midsize and ultra long-range jets are the stars in North America, with the Gulfstream G650 and Bombardier Global 6000 leading the pack.

In Europe, despite overall declines, the Cessna Citation Latitude and the Bombardier Challenger 350 showed an uptick in flights.

Fractional ownership and charter services, particularly in North America, are gaining momentum, with operators like NetJets and Flexjet reporting increased activity.

Key Insights

The US continues to be the backbone of global business aviation, with significant growth in specific jet categories and regions.

Europe faces challenges, with major airports and popular aircraft types experiencing a dip in activity.

Asia maintains a steady growth trajectory, outperforming its 2019 figures.

The Middle East shows resilience, with certain hubs like Dubai maintaining robust activity.

This overview provides a snapshot of the current state of business aviation, reflecting the industry’s resilience and adaptability in the face of regional variations and shifting market demands. As the year draws to a close, these insights offer a glimpse into the potential future landscape of business aviation.

Here, the Chairman of Avia Solutions Group, Gediminas Ziemelis, explains how the lack of aircraft engines and long turnaround times at engine shops are forcing airlines to make changes to their flight schedules at short notice, threatening another chaotic summer season.

Engine shortages affecting flight schedules

KLM Cityhopper, the regional airline operator of Netherlands-based KLM, warned in May 2023 that it would have to make adjustments to its summer timetable. The company said that the forced changes demonstrate the serious and far-reaching issues of engine shortages facing the industry. 

KLM Cityhopper blamed difficulties with fully deploying the Embraer E195-E2 on changes to its flight schedules. As an alternative, the airline will retain older Embraer E190 aircraft and sign wet lease agreements to mitigate the impact as much as possible.

Latvia’s airBaltic was also forced to wet lease aircraft for the summer period after its PW1500G-powered Airbus A220 fleet was negatively impacted by long turnaround times at engine shops. The airline currently has 10 Airbus A220 aircraft which are either stored or under maintenance and is wet leasing up to eight jets from various operators, including four Airbus A320s from Avion Express.

In total, 219 jets powered by the PW1000G aircraft engine family have been impacted by supply chain problems and are currently not operating commercial flights, according to analysis conducted by Cirium in June 2023. The aircraft affected by the problem include the Airbus A220, A321neo, and the Embraer E2 family.

An industry-wide problem for aviation

The difficulties are not exclusive to the PW1000G family, though.

The CFM International LEAP engine family has also been affected by problems. Recently, 88 LEAP-powered aircraft have been grounded . This includes up to 56 aircraft powered by the LEAP-1A engine, including the A320neo and A321neo models. Furthermore, up to 32 Boeing 737 MAX aircraft, which are powered by LEAP-1B engines, are either in storage or in maintenance.

In addition to all of these problems, this is a vicious cycle for airlines. While the newer engines are much more efficient, they require more frequent visits to the shops, where supply chain restrictions are slowing down the turnaround times at Maintenance, Repair, and Overhaul (MRO) companies. At the same time, as airlines began preparations for summer by sending aircraft and engines to shops to ensure checks are completed before the peak season, a still ramping-up supply chain was unable to cope with additional demand, resulting in increased maintenance times for both airframes and propulsion systems.

This has impacted even the largest aircraft, with Qantas saying that slot constraints at MROs have delayed the return on some of its Airbus A380 aircraft.

Impacting summer travel plans

Airlines plan their schedules ahead of time, assuming demand for certain routes based on historic data, while also opening new connections on the assumption that enough people want to travel on the route, and they are willing to pay enough for the airline to recoup its expenses and investment.

As such, if a route opened with the expectation that costs would be capped at a certain amount, a sudden switch to wet lease capacity to keep planes in the air is likely to result in higher charges. As such, the airline would be forced to operate at a loss to maintain its reputation, or pass the additional costs onto the consumer, leading to more expensive tickets.

In the worst-case scenario, the flight would be canceled or significantly delayed, possibly impacting connections and other itineraries. This has the potential to create the chaos seen during the summer of 2022.

But that is the bleakest picture. Fully aware of the supply chain challenges, airlines have reached out to Aircraft, Crew, Maintenance and Insurance (ACMI) operators to cover their commitments for the next few months, at least until the peak season begins to wind down in the fall of 2023, as a solution for their capacity shortage. Another strategy has been keeping older aircraft in service or extending lease agreements, ensuring that passengers can still travel, while the airline manages to sustain a functional flight network.

Overall, since March 26, 2023, when the International Air Transport Association (IATA) summer season began, airlines have, according to ch-aviation data, wet leased up to 51 aircraft globally, covering their capacity needs in the short term.

Only time will tell whether that will be enough, considering that some engines have struggled to operate reliably in hot and/or harsh weather environments, resulting in shorter time-on-wing hours.

Featuring racing machines crafted by legendary aircraft designers including RJ Mitchell of Britain’s Supermarine and Italian counterpart Mario Castoldi of Macchi, the races helped to accelerate the development of sleek airframes as well as V12 engines by the likes of Rolls-Royce. A decade later, this important work led directly to some of the Second World War’s most important fighters, including the iconic Spitfire.

In 1931 at Calshot, on England’s south coast, Britain retained the Schneider Trophy in perpetuity, having secured its third of three victories in five years. The first was won in 1927 on a 50km circuit in Venice when Flight Lieutenant Sidney Webster flew a Supermarine S.5 at an average speed of 281.66mph. With the anniversary of that famous win fast approaching, a small, dedicated team is once again battling the odds – this time to recreate a flying, full-size replica that will bring the S.5 back to life and back into the public consciousness.

During his 22,000 hours of flying, highly experienced commercial and aerobatic pilot William Hosie has flown everything from modern Airbus and Boeing airliners to various general aviation machines. He once flew a Pitts Special biplane across the English Channel – upside down, in fact – to raise money for charity. His family has a distinguished history with the S.5. Hosie’s father Kenneth rebuilt a previous replica out of wood to in the 1980s but was sadly killed flying in 1987. Will Hosie is determined to get his version off the ground.

“I have really wanted to do this for more than 30 years,” Will explains. “Family commitments etcetera meant it was never the right time, until now. We really want to move this into second gear, and we have a plan to get there. I’ve been flying from the age of 15. I had 1000 hours aged just 18 and still fly for a living today. When I come back from flying commercially, I go flying in my own private time.”

He adds: “Whether it’s a model or an aerobatic machine, it’s just all about flying. I love boats and aeroplanes. Anybody who has had anything to do with seaplanes will say they’re the most delightful way to go flying. I want to get the S.5 airborne to prove how much of a lovely aeroplane it is.”

This writer’s own family has a Schneider Trophy connection. My paternal grandfather, who served in the Royal Air Force, was assigned to Calshot during the Supermarine S.5’s testing. A treasured family album features several photographs of the aircraft taken at the time – as well as the funeral of pilot Flight Lieutenant Samuel Kinkead, who was killed testing one of the machines when it plunged into the Solent.

Hosie’s newbuild S.5 – registered as G-SNDR – makes use of modern computer-aided design techniques and advanced engineering skills, which would doubtless have fascinated R J Mitchell and his team back in the 1920s. The original S.5 was described as having ‘no vices’ once airborne and it’s hoped today’s replica will fly just as smoothly. It will feature a Lycoming IO-360 engine producing 210 horsepower instead of the original’s 12,cylinder, 24 liter Napier Lion VII, which churned out an astonishing 900hp. That should make it a more manageable proposition in an era where seaplanes are now a rarity in many parts of the world.

The S.5 was a racing machine and as such it was streamlined as much as possible. That made it tricky to climb into the cockpit, though. Pilots had to lower themselves in sideways until their shoulders were below the sides, then turn to face the instrument panel once seated. Mitchell’s design meant that the cockpit fitted within the silhouette of the engine, to minimize the cross-section facing into the airflow, thus reducing aerodynamic drag.

Experienced Royal Navy test pilot Chris Gotke has been tasked with testing the replica. He describes the challenge as “a truly remarkable moment in time for aviation as a whole; one which I am very much looking forward to seeing”.

The S.5 project team are determined to create something that will celebrate what was, at least for a time, the most prestigious aerial competition in the world and one of Britain’s biggest aeronautical engineering achievements. The 100% scale replica will keep alive the spirit of the 1920s pioneers and will be taken to venues such as Venice and Lake Como, both of which were integral to the Schneider Trophy’s history.

Britain’s Light Aircraft Association is overseeing the project under the ‘Permit to Fly’ regime, which is more cost-effective than the Certificate of Airworthiness required for commercial flight operations. Although modest in terms of cost when compared with the likes of a Spitfire restoration, the S.5 team are nevertheless seeking funding support to complete the project. A crowd-funding page is up and running too, along with a scheme to offer paid flights in de Havilland Chipmunk aircraft with instructor pilots, with the cost being donated directly to the charity.

One major setback to the project was a fire in 2021, during which the seaplane plans, stock of specialist aviation wood and all the work done up to that point went up in smoke. Piece by piece, though, the wings have been remade and shipped from Cornwall to Essex where metal parts and controls have been fitted. The wings will then be wrapped up to keep them in pristine condition while the fuselage and floats are constructed.

The timeline focuses on having the S.5 ready to fly for the Schneider Trophy anniversary in 2027. The type deserves to be commemorated for the effect it had on aircraft design, pushing development of the seaplane towards the eventual Supermarine S.6 and ultimately the war-winning Spitfire fighter.

Hosie explains: “We want to have a 100% scale aeroplane flying to keep alive the spirit of the 1920s. There is no flying S.5 aeroplane, so this will be unique. Our aim is to keep it in everybody’s mind, to educate the next generation and to help keep the Schneider Trophy alive.”

Severe weather can mean enormous costs for both airlines and airports through delays and cancellations, along with the bad publicity during disruptive periods.

In December 2010, Europe was faced with severe adverse conditions in the week before Christmas. Frankfurt airport recorded more than 246 flight cancellations in a single day, while Charles de Gaulle airport in Paris had shortages of de-icing fluid.

To minimize disruption and maintain safety, airlines and airports provide training and publish detailed winter plans to help cope with severe winter weather.

Clean Aircraft Concept

One of the most serious threats to flight safety is the presence of snow, frost and ice on the wings, known as wing contamination. Throughout aviation history, this has caused many accidents.

In January 1982, for example, Air Florida Flight 90 crashed into an icy Potomac River only 30 seconds after take-off from Washington National Airport, killing 78 people.

The main cause of the accident was the presence of ice and snow on critical surfaces of the aircraft.

Contamination of ice, snow or frost on an aircraft surface has two serious impacts: increased weight and reduced aircraft performance, including a higher stall speed and reduced lift.

A mere three mm of frost can increase the distance an aircraft needs to take off by more than 80%.

To prevent accidents such as Flight 90, airlines and aviation bodies support the Clean Aircraft Concept meaning that no aircraft should take off with any critical surfaces contaminated. This is achieved by de-icing and anti-icing.

De-icing vs Anti-icing

De-icing is the removal of any ice or snow from the aircraft surfaces and is usually completed on stand before pushback. An aircraft can be de-iced using fluid or by mechanical means.

Extreme care must be taken when applying any fluid to an aircraft surface. There are specific no-spray areas, such as antennas, windows, landing gear, instrument probes, and the engines.

Anti-icing is a preventative process completed after the removal of any ice, snow or frost. It provides protection for a limited time period known as a holdover time (HOT).

Pilots refer to HOT tables to determine the maximum time period for the prevailing conditions and fluid used before the aircraft has to undergo another de-icing procedure.

During flight, aircraft use anti-ice systems built into the engines and wings. Pneumatic de-icing boots are common on smaller aircraft, which expand to break off any ice on the wings.

Jet aircraft use warm bleed air from the engines which is directed through tubes close to the wing surface. Aircraft such as the Boeing 787 use more efficient electro thermal coils.

Before aircraft are certified, they undergo extreme weather testing, in conditions as cold as -35 Celsius for many hours, during which all the systems are tested and monitored.

Winter forecasts

Airports rely on meteorology forecasts to predict and plan for winter weather. Up to five days out, forecasts are produced detailing any extreme weather.

Aside from snow, frost and ice, airport forecasts often include lesser-known weather phenomena:

Freezing Rain (FZRA)
Freezing Drizzle (FZDZ)
Freezing Fog (FZFG)
Snow Pellets (GS)

Light freezing rain (-FZRA) is the condition with the shortest holdover time of any kind of bad weather, including snow. This is because freezing rain will freeze almost instantly after touching a cold surface such as an aircraft.

Aprons, taxiways and runways

In spite of all of the above, if the airport itself isn’t clear of snow and ice, aircraft won’t be going anywhere.

Major airports have fleets of snow-clearing vehicles which work around the clock to keep the taxiways, aprons and, most importantly, the runways clear and safe to use.

Airport surfaces can be pre-treated with anti-ice solutions to prevent ice and snow build-up, but when conditions are too bad, the airport operation manager will close the runway.

In a highly coordinated effort, teams will begin to clear the snow. Depending on the extent of the snow and the size of the runway, this can take up significant time especially if snowfall continues during the clearing.

For airports more used to dealing with winter weather, snow clearing can take as little as 20 minutes, minimizing runway closures and flight delays.

Once the runway is cleared, the airport authorities measure the surface friction to determine whether it is safe to be reopened for aircraft.

Although frustrating, the next time you are delayed at an airport in wintry weather, take some comfort in knowing that safety is a priority.

This year started as a continuation of the operational and economic woes that had negatively impacted the global aviation industry since 2019. Global Data shows that many full-service airlines and low-cost carriers have continued to report declining revenue turnover in 2022, three years since the emergence of the pandemic. This poor performance is partly attributed to the closure of the Russian airspace in March 2022, which locked out at least 27 EU countries from flying through the region. The aftermath of such sanctions includes travel disruptions, increased flight time, and rising travel costs. However, GlobalData has estimated a 73% revenue growth in the global aviation industry this year, mainly due to the relaxation of travel bans as the health and security concerns about the COVID-19 pandemic wane.

Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 and the subsequent escalation, the conflict has cast dark clouds and created uncertainty on the recovery from the macroeconomic and operational challenges brought about by the pandemic.

Frequent flight cancellations and postponements have become a new order in many airlines, mainly due to problems in assembling the appropriate crew or acquiring aircraft to meet the growing passenger demands at the right time. Although the problem started manifesting in 2021, 2022 has been one of the hardest-hit years, with many airlines in Europe and America reporting a double-digit decline in operational performance.

In 2022, many carriers have reported disappointing figures on on-time performance. In the first two months of 2022, on-time performance for global airlines clocked at 76.8%, according to the latest data. This figure indicated a 7% decline in on-time performance compared to the statistics reported in November 2021. With this realization, many airlines have opted to operate within constrained schedules, primarily due to staff shortage problems, making it difficult to meet the growing air travel demands. Markedly, such travel challenges have forced many passengers to reconsider their air travel options, with a significant proportion showing increased favorability for private flying. In turn, this has paved the way toward democratized private aviation.

Towards late March, a growing labor crisis became ubiquitous and started making the news in many airlines. March and April represent the peak period in aviation when many families book flights in preparation for Easter getaways. Data provided by Cirium, a renowned aviation analytics company, reported more than 1,100 cancelled flights in the UK during the last week of March 2022. By all indications, these cancellations pointed to composite issues, from tight staffing issues, increased absentee rate among airline staff due to health safety concerns, and IT system problems. Nonetheless, air travel demand maintained an upward trend despite airlines’ failure or inability to supplement this demand. Owing to the abovementioned issues, flight cancellations continued into the subsequent months of April, May, and June, including at London’s biggest airports like Heathrow, Gatwick, and Stansted, among others.

Besides staffing issues, many carriers have experienced challenges finding aircraft repair and maintenance services. A survey report by Oliver Wyman showed that more than 85% of the big airlines experience problems in recruiting maintenance, repair, and overhaul personnel. Such hurdles have increased the demand and utilization for ACMI services, creating a deficit in the aviation leasing market.

While many airlines have remained on an upward growth trajectory in the second, third, and fourth quarters of 2022, it is ostensible that the mounting staffing problems have catalyzed a bigger and unanticipated problem in the global aviation sector. Such issues have forced many airlines to cancel routes, reschedule flights, and reduce the frequency, exposing such carriers to an elevated risk of declining revenue growth. On the other hand, the labor shortfall made it challenging for carriers to reflect profits in their annual financial reports, primarily due to increasing labor costs at a time when these companies were confronting other serious problems, such as rising fuel prices. The nexus between labor shortfalls and increasing fuel prices has exposed airlines to the risk of increasing operating costs.

From mid-May through August, the global aviation industry had attained a 34% increase in air travel recoveries for various segments, including leisure and corporate travel sectors, compared to the spread reported toward the last quarter of 2021. This growth is more reflective of the growing demand for leisure travel compared to other aviation segments, such as business aviation. Likewise, corporate travel has gradually improved, with several major airlines predicting a faster recovery in this segment by the end of 2022 and early into 2023. The projected growth in business travel signals more significant business opportunities for the private aviation segment, which may translate to more profits for leading charter companies and increasing revenues.

One bright spot for global aviation has been the air cargo segment. Throughout 2022, the global airfreight segment has reported tremendous growth amid gradual recovery for the wide-body passenger capacity. An increasing number of airlines have continued to expand their operations into this highly valued segment, enabling them to tap into the opportunities presented by the growing e-commerce activities and the spike in demand for just-in-time (JIT) deliveries.

However, the return of wide-body passenger capacity during the first and second quarters of 2022 has slowed global air cargo growth – which was 49% down compared to pre-pandemic figures – primarily due to fleet capacity problems and shortages in shipping personnel. A report released by IATA in October 2022 showed that the global cargo volumes have declined by 8.3% in cargo ton-kilometers (CTKs) and 9.3% for international operations compared to August 2021.

The reported trends give a general outlook for various aviation segments. Markedly, the encouraging performance in how many airlines have sailed past the macroeconomic and operational challenges from unexpected events demonstrates industry resilience amid uncertainties. However, airlines are exploring the prospects of maximizing their financial returns and operating at full throttle in 2023 following a tumultuous year in which the global economy and the aviation industry went into a near tailspin.

But the closure of airports themselves cuts much deeper into the psyche of all who love and value aviation. The devastating news that Peel Group, owner of Doncaster-Sheffield Airport, planned to bring down the curtain on this historic military airfield that, in more recent times, has been home to a sleek commercial passenger terminal, sent shockwaves through the local community and roused British politicians at the local, regional and national level.

Alas, to date, all have been unsuccessful in securing a sustainable future for the airport. Peel protests that it is not economically viable to continue, although other interested parties believe they could make it work. So, the battle is likely to continue in the courts, with the threat of a Compulsory Purchase Order hanging over the site. With the airlines Tui and Wizz Air having already left, aerospace services company 2Excel Aviation was among the last operators in the race to extract its aircraft before Peel’s deadline to shutter the airport on November 18.

I was privileged to be invited onto the flight deck of the final Boeing 727 departure from Doncaster on an aircraft operated by 2Excel on behalf of Oil Spill Response Ltd (OSRL). The occasion was one I’ll long remember for its sadness, but also for the opportunity to experience how the crew train regularly to maintain their expertise in flying this classic freighter at just 150 feet above the water.

Captained from the left-hand seat by Arnie Palmer, 2Excel’s director of special missions, with colleague Matt Tones in the right-hand seat and Gary Bruce as flight engineer, the red-and-white 727 has become a popular sight in the skies above South Yorkshire. But it’s inside where this distinctive pair of aeroplanes really surpasses expectations. The onboard TERSUS spray system was created by 2Excel in answer to a unique set of requirements: to provide a jet response aircraft capable of spraying dispersant over an oil spill to ensure an environmental disaster like BP’s Gulf of Mexico catastrophe could never happen again.

This readiness contract held by 2Excel requires the team to have a crew on constant alert to be airborne within four hours to fly anywhere in the world to fly their critical mission. Effectively an insurance policy funded by the global oil sector, the aircraft have thankfully never been needed to fly their mission for real. But it’s crucial that the crews maintain their skills currency by training weekly. And that requires descending to just 150 feet over the sea.

With a wingspan of just over 108 feet, the 727 is a large aeroplane to be wrestling with over the water. But it couldn’t be better designed for the task, with the three jet engines sitting high up by the tail and a spray boom attached under the fuselage with nozzles that are scientifically proven to disperse the spill-fighting liquid at the correct droplet size to do its job.

Walking out of 2Excel’s Doncaster hangar towards the 727 for the final time, Captain Palmer looked wistfully at the aircraft as flight engineer Bruce completed final preparations and checks ready for departure. Tones, first officer for this mission, settled into his seat to prime the aircraft for start-up, talking quietly over the intercom with the ground crew plugged into the jet outside. I strapped myself into the jump seat, directly behind Palmer, having donned a life jacket and familiarized myself with the exit routes and procedures in case of ditching.

Given our start and taxi clearances from air traffic, the crew quickly started up the 727’s three engines and we began our slow trundle out to the active 20 runway. I’d been briefed this would be a maximum power take-off with 20 degrees nose up. But I wasn’t quite prepared for the sheer power of this aircraft’s uprated outboard engines. Flying with no liquid in the TERSUS tanks – to date, the aircraft has only ever been loaded with fresh water – and sufficient fuel for a spray sortie, one circuit and reserves, the aircraft was very light.

Rolling onto the centerline and straightening the nosewheel gear, Palmer immediately called for full power and the thrust levers were pushed forward to their stops. It seemed like an almost instantaneous surge to 70-plus knots before hitting V1 and Tones calling out ‘rotate’, the control column being eased back by Palmer as the aircraft’s nose tracked up above the horizon, sending us soaring towards the clouds. In seconds we blasted up to 6,000 feet and began to level off, turning on track towards the North Sea east of Whitby.

The next phase of the flight was among the most exciting flying I’ve experienced. Spying a decent hole in the cloud base, the crew steered the massive freighter down through the gap, levelling off at 1,000 feet to begin their checks ready for a simulated spray session. 2Excel has developed a standard procedure for the OSRL mission which involves stabilizing at 1,000 feet then gradually descending down to 150 feet. This feels akin to the famous ‘Dambusters’ movie where the Lancaster bombers fly down low over the water for their bombing profiles.

Once at 150 feet, the flight engineer’s eyes are glued to the radar altimeter and he calls out the heights: “150, 150, 150”. If the nose dips and we descend to 140 feet, his tone of voice has a pronounced change in pitch. If we touch 130 feet, this is even more pronounced and the handling pilot is obliged to acknowledge with the word “climbing” as he eases back the stick.

At the end of the spray run, the 727 is climbed back to 1,000 feet for the turn, describing the shape of a dumbbell, before descending back down to 150 feet for the next run. If this wasn’t a simulation, the crew would perform this maneuver repeatedly until the dispersant was exhausted and then return several times to battle the oil slick on the surface.

All too soon the low-level ride was over, and we climbed back up to turn on track to Teesside where this pair of 727s will be based in the immediate aftermath of their rushed departure from Doncaster. Popping down out of the cloud close to the Redcar steel mill, Teesside’s runway was easy to spot and lit up in welcome. After an uneventful landing, Palmer taxied the giant trijet onto the parking stand and the crew descended the steps to take in their new base.

As of now, global key operators have maintained a strong presence in Europe, North America, and the Asia Pacific, but the African ACMI market has remained largely underserved. In terms of product, these operators have acquired over 45% of the total market share in the wide-body segment and 52% in the global air cargo market.

With a ripple effect from other non-aviation sectors, a growing demand for sustainable solutions from leading airlines in the Sub-Saharan African continent, and the prospect of market improvement, ACMI operators should seek key opportunities to cover the emerging needs in this largely underserved market and, at the same time, improve their competitive positions in the global ACMI leasing market.

Remaining flexible, meeting the changing operational and capacity demands, and rapidly adapting to unexpected market instabilities is the linchpin for African airlines to achieve viability moving forward. In reality, only a few regional airlines are currently keen on utilizing ACMI solutions to increase their flexibility and advance toward viability. African airlines should start issuing lease requests for proposals (RFPs) to key global ACMI operators as a strategy to increase flexibility, provide an unrivalled experience for air passengers, and improve their overall competitiveness.

As far as I am concerned, wet-leasing solutions appear to be the most ideal and promising solution for leading African airlines to increase their viability, however they remain the most underutilized solution in the region. ACMI solutions present some significant and sustainable options for airlines in the region. As large and small airlines navigate the 2022 headwinds and align themselves on the path to viability, they face the problem of how to increase their flexibility and match uncertain demand with their operations and aircraft capacity. Under such circumstances, wet-lease airlines provide a go-to option for struggling airlines to achieve reliable and viable performance.

In 2018, Avia Solutions Group subsidiary Avion Express, completed 52,500 block hours, with current forecasts indicating that the company’s productivity in ACMI leasing will increase significantly by the close of 2022 and into 2023. The beauty of working with such ACMI operators is that these companies have a tailored solution for every type of carrier, whether an international airline with a 500-aircraft fleet or a regional turboprop operator with only one aircraft.

As of July 2022, 64.23% of fleets were grounded in West African countries, the highest globally and ahead of Hong Kong, Iran, and Malaysia. It may seem strange or unrealistic that African carriers would consider wet-lease options in such a situation. However, ACMI services still provide a safer bet for these airlines when balanced against the costs of reviving the grounded aircraft and providing recurrent training for pilots who were out of service.

Wet leasing provides a choice between sourcing resources from established ACMI operators or investing resources – in most cases unavailable – without a guarantee that such investments will prevent a system shutdown in the short term or long term.

For established ACMI providers, market intelligence provides an important lever, enabling these companies to know where lease aircraft can be accessed at short notice, considering that these companies have established long-standing relationships with legacy ACMI airlines. This means that African airlines struggling with capacity and other performance issues should consider third-party wet leasing as the most appropriate solution to address their woes and align themselves on the path to stability.

Based on the growing numbers of well-informed customers in the African aviation market, Avia Solutions Group foresees massive demand for wet-leasing services, with more and more airlines outsourcing aircraft, MRO services, provision for spares and tools, and insurance. Our subsidiary companies, including KlasJet, are joining us to expand their service portfolio and add more clients from these underserved regions, Africa being our priority and primary target market for ACMI leasing. In a recent communication by Rita Domkute, CEO of KlasJet, the business aviation carrier announced plans to expand its wide-body fleet by adding five economy class, next-generation Boeing 737s by the close of 2023. Each of these aircraft will bring an additional 189-passenger capacity to the existing fleet, providing opportunities for KlasJet to expand its ACMI operations and extrapolate its industry expertise to new markets like Africa.

As many African airlines may have witnessed in recent years, the aviation business is not immune to unexpected disruptions and the knock-on effects from other industries that typically affect their ability to meet operational demands and achieve viable development. Wet leasing solutions offer a flexible way for struggling African airlines to scale up and expand their market share in aggressive aviation markets dominated by non-African carriers or where existing airlines have become unviable. 

Numerous reports have revealed that aviation accounts for more than 3% of global carbon emissions. Furthermore, air transport represents over 12% of the total emissions from transport-related activities. With the anticipated growth in air traffic, the general expectation is that the aviation industry will report a manifold increase in its carbon footprint by 2050.

Like other transport sectors, aviation has also suffered from the adverse consequences of the intensifying economic pressure. The industry is grappling against unprecedented challenges that have pushed many airlines into a near crisis, putting them in the line of interrupted cash flows and reduced profitability. According to IATA, global airlines are now operating in a “bullish oil market,” with fuel prices surpassing $80 per barrel. Such spikes in fuel price and curbed supplies represent a critical problem for airlines, given that jet fuel accounts for more than 30% of an airline’s costs.

Avia Solutions believe that Big Data and data science have provided new possibilities for airlines to accurately predict the amount of fuel needed for every scheduled flight and optimize flight routes to increase energy efficiency. The best scenario is to have a single analytical tool. Southwest Airlines (LUV) provides an excellent example of a carrier that has successfully invested in data analytics through its fuel consumption project.

The investment by Southwest Airlines (LUV) in an analytics project is reported to have enabled the company to achieve significant improvements in fuel demand forecasts for its fleet of over 700 aircraft. In this project, the airline has built eight predictive models, comprising time series algorithms and a series of neural networks. The airline’s analytics system can produce up to 9,600 fuel demand forecasts per month and for over 100 airports which the carrier flies to. Before Southwest Airlines (LUV) adopted the analytics system, the project team generated as little as 1,200 forecasts for jet fuel demand each month. At that point, each financial analyst would take up to 3 days to create one forecast that, in most cases, turned out to be inaccurate.      

OpenAirlines envisions that airlines can tackle the current predicament by going the digital way. As a leading digital solutions provider in the European region, the company has created data analysis platforms that airlines can implement to collect real-time feedback during flights, monitor aircraft performance, provide advanced routing calculations, and facilitate on-time performance analysis.

Over 50 airlines worldwide have started to experience the benefits of information technologies such as Big Data and AI in their day-to-day operations. By implementing analytics platforms such as SkyBreath 360°– a big data analysis software by OpenAirlines – these airlines have reported a 2-5% decline in fuel consumption during flights and subsequent reduction in their CO2 equivalents.

Through eco-friendly digital platforms like SkyBreath 360°, airlines can either switch to alternative solutions to revitalize existing digital fuel efficiency programs or introduce novel solutions in their classic fuel efficiency programs. 

According to a statement by the International Panel on Climate Change (IPPC), digital technologies represent a new frontier that aviation companies can capitalize on to mitigate their carbon footprints, primarily by increasing energy efficiency while simultaneously generating other economic opportunities.

Some changes are necessary for airlines to deal with expected structural evolutions and move towards greening aviation at various levels in the aircraft value chain. They must work with digital providers to accelerate progress toward digital solutions aimed at helping them attain fuel efficiency and meet their zero-carbon targets. Furthermore, airlines must explore ways to combine AI with other digital technologies, such as the Internet of Things (IoT), to build intelligent capabilities for operations management through analytics.

Incorporating Big Data algorithms and other intelligent systems such as AI and Machine Learning (ML) during original engine manufacturing and flight data records will support sophisticated aerospace analytics and forecasting on fuel usage and recommend changes to achieve energy efficiency. Analytics platforms like Skywise, Aviator, Analytx, and R2 Data Labs by Rolls Royce collect and analyze billions of data from various aircraft systems and provide recommendations for potential savings and optimization based on exact flight conditions. With such systems, airlines can monitor their aircraft in real-time and identify fuel-saving opportunities to attain energy efficiency, reduce fuel consumption, and subsequently cut down their carbon emissions.        

Having joined Cruise in the Hollywood superstar’s personal P-51 Mustang, Corden’s next challenge was to experience flight in an L-39 jet trainer, again with ‘Maverick’ at the controls. The YouTube stunt was an instant hit, giving the public a brief but entertaining glimpse of what it’s like to fly military jets. The reality of flying the Aerovodochody L-39 Albatros surpasses even the screen version. Corden was elated after the trip, although also relieved to be back on the ground.

“The reality of flying the Aerovodochody L-39 Albatros surpasses even the screen version,” writes AeroTime’s Ben Griffiths. Image by Michael Jorgensen 

I’ve been privileged to fly the L-39 twice with a group of Dijon, France-based aviators who performed at airshows and offered experience flights under the Breitling watch brand up until 2019. Today, the team are known as ‘Apace Aviation’ and continue to operate the aircraft. The L-39 itself has been in operation for over 50 years, with more than 30 armed services flying the type, including the former Soviet and East German air forces.

Described as having excellent handling characteristics across the whole flight envelope, more than 2,800 examples were delivered worldwide, with some 300 in civilian hands today. Having made its first flight in 1968, the L-39 was designed as a successor to the earlier L-29 Delfin, with full-scale production beginning in 1972.

AeroTime’s Ben Griffiths recalls taking to the skies in the Aerovodochody L-39 Albatros. Image by Michael Jorgensen.

Pairing an efficient but powerful jet turbofan engine with a sleek, streamlined fuselage, the Albatros was built to deliver a strong but economical jet trainer for Warsaw Pact air forces. Easy to maintain, cheap to operate and highly reliable, the aircraft can operate from grass strips and semi-prepared airfields.

The one downside is the Albatros lacks power when compared with Western counterparts like the BAE Systems Hawk, chosen mount of the Red Arrows. But it looks good, is easy to fly and to maintain, is reliable and quite affordable to operate if you compare it with other military jets.

Given my logbook when I flew with the team had a mere 140 hours in it, and all on piston-engined, propeller aircraft, I had a sense of trepidation as to how a lowly private pilot would cope with the experience. I needn’t have worried. Team leader Jacque Bothelin and his fellow pilots were determined that I’d get to control, and enjoy, their airplane by trying my hand at jet formation flying, as well as riding along during a seven-aircraft aerobatic routine that would demonstrate the L-39’s full capabilities.

The L-39 has been in operation for over 50 years with more than 30 armed services. Image by Michael Jorgensen

Suited up in flying kit and helmet, the nerves were building as I was settling into my seat in the rear cockpit of Francois Ponsot’s aircraft. The team’s pilots are all highly experienced, mainly French air force and some ex-Patrouille de France – the French equivalent of the Red Arrows. With Ponsot – nicknamed ‘PonPon’ – I was in good hands. The maintainer strapping me in pointed out the various safety features of the jet, but my heart jumped a beat when he explained the ejection seat, which would propel me clear of the stricken airplane should disaster strike. Removing the safety pins, I was now sitting atop a rocket. That does wonders for your concentration.

Looking around the cockpit to familiarize myself helped me to relax. The battleship grey instrument panel and dials were simple and basic, similar to most trainers I’ve flown, aside from the chunkier switches and prominent stick and throttle controls. The canopy closing with a clunk brought my attention back to the outside world as PonPon began the starting sequence.

The L-39 uses a small motor to spool up the fan of the main engine and get it to operating speed before fuel is added and the jet bursts into life. A muffled roar can be heard from inside the cockpit – outside I knew a veritable tornado was now searing the air in a cacophony of noise.

The one downside is the Albatros lacks power when compared with Western counterparts. Image by Michael Jorgensen.

As our wingmen checked in on the radio as being ready to launch, PonPon released the brakes, and we began our slow trundle towards the active runway. Soon we were all lined up and ready to go. Our jet sat in the number 2 position to the left of the leader in the first element of three aircraft. The remaining four were in a diamond shape behind us on the runway. With a distinct nod of the head, Bothelin signaled the takeoff and our jets surged forward as one, thudding over the gaps in the concrete runway at Dijon with increasing speed until that delightful moment when the wheels left the earth, and the aircraft take to the wing.

This was followed by a heavy clump, clump as the wheels retracted into their bays and we accelerated away from the airport. Our lead element was rapidly joined by the other four jets. PonPon called: “Look left”, and outside another wingman slid effortlessly into position and stayed locked there as if glued in place. My fellow passengers were grinning away, like me barely able to comprehend what their eyes were seeing. Your first taste of formation jet aerobatics is truly sensational. The power and sense of freedom is overwhelming. We were bobbing along in the leader’s slipstream. I felt I could almost touch his jet and feel the air streaming over the wings.

A short transit to the team’s training area and we began the aerobatic sequence with a series of wingovers and formation changes. I was barely prepared for the onset of ‘G’ – the gravitational pull that loads up the body with additional forces and can easily lead to blacking out if you’re not ready, as the blood is pushed towards your feet and away from the brain. I was looking over my left shoulder as we pulled 4.5G – I was now 4.5 times my normal bodyweight – and my head was uncomfortably pinned in place.

The Albatross has an efficient but powerful jet turbofan engine and a sleek, streamlined fuselage. Image by Michael Jorgensen.

Easing off the ‘G’ briefly, I determined to keep looking straight ahead during the routine, as we dived down to begin a loop, describing a perfect circle in the sky. Pulling firmly back on the controls, PonPon steered us skyward, the aircraft becoming inverted before diving back down to our starting position to complete the loop.

Our routine was soon over and PonPon invited me to take the controls. At this point I felt like James Corden must have done, seriously out of my depth. But, with PonPon’s expert instruction, I was soon making a reasonable fist of remaining in position with frequent but tiny adjustments to throttle and stick, chasing the aircraft in front and to the side as I fought hard to stay in formation.

After enjoying this for a while, PonPon took back control and our element slipped down into low level for our transit back to Dijon. The jet was bumping around over the fields of rural France, akin to driving over a rutted road. Fighter pilots fly low to avoid enemy radar, just as they did in their F/A-18s in Top Gun: Maverick when attacking the enemy missile site. We were doing it just for fun and the sensation of speed was sensational.

Making our approach to land back at the airport, the team lined up for a formation run-in-and-break in classic military style. This not only looks good but is designed to position the jets for landing, adequately spaced out but also to slow down to approach speed.

Having enjoyed flying with the team and been impressed by their skills, I was not the least surprised that our touchdown was silky smooth. The L-39 gliding down to kiss the runway, with the nose kept high for aerodynamic braking. The nosewheel dropped and we coasted back to our parking spots outside the team’s HQ building.

The canopy opened and the fresh air blasting into the cockpit reawakened my senses. It was pleasant to remove my helmet and just sit in the cockpit for a while to listen to the gyro instruments winding down and to contemplate what I’d just experienced. 

Current predictions indicate that the aviation industry will experience a 46.4% CAGR growth in AI application by 2023. The trend may replicate with other technologies, providing personalized and optimized travel experience for air travelers, supporting democratizing decision-making processes, and eliminating uncertainties in air travel.

Unfortunately, under unexpected circumstances, these technologies may exacerbate transport issues, create new risks, or cause inefficiencies, which may affect the sustainability of the existing air transport systems in unprecedented ways.

Within the 2030 Sustainability Agenda framework, ICAO assumes the role of the custodian agency, which encompasses providing global indicators for industry growth and progress in such areas as technology within the aviation sector. ICAO’s role involves monitoring and gathering data on aviation infrastructure and efforts that different countries have taken to foster innovation and promote sustainable industrialization. However, the central question revolves around how aviation regulations influence technology deployment and the shift towards sustainable mobility.

From a regulatory perspective, there is a need for more regulation to enable operational testing for emerging aviation technology before their deployment. According to a report on Aircraft Technology Roadmap (ATR) to 2050, the IATA expresses the need to review existing regulations and aviation standards to ensure that the deployment of the emerging technologies does not impede the climate action goals that aviation stakeholders have committed to.

Current forecasts indicate that the birth of new aviation technologies may accelerate the rate of air passenger traffic to about 3.7% annually, which would translate to more pollutant emissions from this industry. However, aviation stakeholders have committed to reducing their net environmental footprint by 50% by 2050. This calls for more regulations and market-based measures to achieve a controlled deployment of emerging aviation technologies and reduce their associated adverse environmental outcomes.

The Clean Sky-2 Joint Technology Initiative (CSJTI) reflects what aviation stakeholders from the European Union (EU) are doing to regulate innovative aviation technologies and harness their capabilities to achieve a “highly cost-efficient air transport system” and build a sustainable innovation ecosystem and operational environments using “ultra-green” technologies. ICAO maintains that regulatory measures must become the mainstay of innovation and deployment of future aircraft and aviation technology. The regulation of aviation technologies should focus on compliance with existing standards including environmental, design specifications, and operational aspects.

Despite the compelling need for technology regulation, such efforts should not create an impediment or a barrier that may limit future innovation. For this reason, the regulatory process should take a double-pronged approach that focuses on providing flexible and forward-looking legislation. The aftermath is a practical operational framework that incentivizes professionals in the aviation industry to bring safe, secure, and sustainable state-of-the-art aviation technologies and solutions.

For example, the regulation for autonomous, non-piloted, or uncrewed aircraft should levitate on the design standards and legislation that specify their use of Beyond Visual Line of Sight (BVLOS). The regulation should also respond to the “safety aspect” and risk management processes to ensure that the deployment of aviation technologies does not pose a safety risk to pilots, passengers, and the public. Other areas to focus on in safety regulation include integration and interoperability with other systems in the airspace and need for maintenance.

As part of regulation, the operators of upcoming aviation technology must ensure that these innovations meet insurance compliance requirements. Such regulations offer a mechanism to safeguard the operators from any liabilities and other costs resulting from unforeseen incidents.

The regulation should target imposing controls on the development and operation of aviation technologies that have the potential to compromise physical and cyber security when deployed.

As such, the regulation should respond to the security issues emanating from specific technologies, including unlawful interference and the democratization of technology-related security threats that affect civilian aviation systems, including reservation systems, passport control systems, cloud-based data systems, and departure control systems, and so on.

Markedly, as airlines recover from Covid-19 pandemic shocks, staff shortage issues have become increasingly ubiquitous in many airports. Employees have expressed dissatisfaction with their work environments, citing unfair treatment, increased work pressure, long working hours, and a lack of morale, a situation that has compelled many to resign from their jobs, leading to staff shortage problems. For some airlines, the staffing disruption has resulted from early retirement packages and layoffs that many airports initiated at the start of the pandemic. These disruptions have created a chaotic situation in many airports, impeding routine operations.

The ongoing technology advancements have presented significant benefits for the aviation industry but have left stakeholders at crossroads on as airlines lack staff to execute these trends. The greater sprawl of aviation technology has also raised a constellation of safety, security, and operational issues that necessitates a proactive approach toward their regulation.      

Looking at many airlines today, it is apparent that more than 80% of their installed fleet constitutes single-aisle aircraft, ranging from small to middle-sized planes. From our position, the long-term outlook is that the aviation market will likely shift towards narrow-body, with single-aisle aircraft share in the global commercial aviation market increasing to over 56% in the next five years.

Since the dawning of the pandemic, we have seen a couple of these airlines shift towards larger narrow body, even though the migration appears somewhat slower than expected due to the massive backlog of undelivered aircraft. Nonetheless, the aviation industry has noted a gradual transition towards large single-aisle, with the current projections indicating that these aircraft variants have increased by over 50% compared to pre-pandemic figures.

It is rather evident that backlog issues are a major concern for many airlines as far as the shift toward single-aisle aircraft is concerned. Based on the available figures, this backlog means that the worldwide fleet of various aircraft variants that fall under the large narrow body category will remain below 40%, but the trend may change favorably in the coming years. However, industry experts still believe that the figure will surpass the 35% mark in the next five years if we follow current market trends. 

In reference to a statement by Boeing’s management, “the heart of the market is around 180-200 seats.” Conceivably, this statement posits that Boeing’s large single-aisle aircraft may become the new market shapers, given the company’s current positioning with large single-aisles. Remarkably, the number of Max 9 and 10 configurations and high-density Max 8 variants have started to dominate the installed fleet for many airlines, representing a new market trend towards single-aisles.

In all likelihood, the aviation market will note an increased number of A321 Neo variants, high-density A320 Neos making an entry into the narrow body market, pushing the tide further in the post-Covid global aviation industry. However, Airbus’s share in the single-aisle market seems to be growing faster than its US rival, Boeing, which believably owns more aircraft variants in the narrow body category.

The latest figures provided for the two major manufacturers to the end of June indicate that Airbus had delivered over 10,600 of the 17,000 orders made by different airlines for A320 and A220 variants. The A320 has emerged as one of the best-selling and most popular single-aisle aircraft, with its market share surpassing that of Boeing’s 737 Max models.

Market experts have cited the quality of engineering and recent disasters and grounding of the single-aisle Max 737 variants as reasons why Boeing’s share in the narrow body market is trailing Airbus. Recent fleet data indicates that Airbus is struggling with a huge order backlog for single-aisle aircraft in the A320 family, with the current market share clocking at 59%. These figures indicate that the old order is fast changing, with the single-aisle market becoming increasingly attractive for many airlines.

Further, the increased favorability of the A320 series for short-haul destinations has increased their attractiveness in the aviation market, presenting opportunities for airlines to maintain intensive flyer programmes during the post-Covid recovery period. Therefore, these aircraft appear more feasible for airlines seeking to achieve fast rebound rates, unlike Boeing’s single-aisle aircraft that predominantly operate in the long-haul segment.  

Unlike wide-body aircraft, the single-aisle segment includes aircraft that allow airlines to achieve the best “per-seat economics” and ultimately provide greater flexibility for passengers. This explains the increased attractiveness of large single-aisle aircraft in the face of current predicaments that characterize the global aviation market. 

As seen from the order backlogs that aircraft manufacturers are dealing with now, the value of single-aisle variants in driving growth and helping airlines meet their capacity demands during the post-Covid recovery period is largely indispensable. Given these realities, manufacturers should look into the possibilities of creating “middle of the market” aircraft models and those that offer circular composite fuselage to complement existing single-aisle models.   

So, when renowned display pilot Guy Westgate casually leaned over and switched off the engine in the Grob 109B we were throwing around above the English countryside, the hairs on my neck stood on end, the training kicked in, I pitched the nose forward and reached towards the control panel to begin restart drills. Meanwhile, Guy giggled mischievously, folded his arms, and looked positively relaxed.

Thankfully we were sharing the cockpit of an incredible motor glider and cutting the power is par for the course. I’d never been gliding before or attempted to pilot an plane in which one might consider flying without an engine. And yet, once my brain registered that the long-winged Grob is designed to stay aloft for a long time without needing to burn any fossil fuels, my nervous grimace relaxed into a smile, soon followed by a broad grin which lasted for hours after we’d landed. This is a super-fun and modern flying machine that brings a lot of enjoyment to every aerial adventure.

The story of the Grob 109 is one of a phoenix rising from the ashes. Britain’s Royal Air Force had operated a fleet of them with their Volunteer Gliding Squadrons, where the aircraft had been known as the Vigilant T1 since being introduced in 1991. Thousands of cadets got their first taste of life in the skies in them before the Vigilants were grounded following the discovery of paperwork irregularities and uncertainties about their fatigue life. At that point, it was a safe assumption the aircraft would never fly again. Enter stage left Mike Miller-Smith, the indomitable chief executive of flying charity Aerobility, whose remit is to offer disabled people — “without exception” — the opportunity to get aloft.

By March 2020, Aerobility had acquired 63 of the Vigilants, formulating a plan to have them recertified, refurbished and re-engined with new 100hp Rotax powerplants paired with a two-blade, constant speed and fully feathering propeller. Aerobility hopes to retain and operate up to eight of these, which it has labelled the G109 Able, while the rest will be gradually sold to finance the charity and its work.

Miller-Smith was eager for me to try out the Able for myself and see what it can do. So, air display pilot and instructor Guy Westgate, who is a long-term flyer of Grob motor gliders, was tasked with demonstrating the plane. I couldn’t have been in better hands.

So, what is the Able like to fly? The first thing to note is that the aircraft’s wings are simply massive, which does focus the mind when taxiing but can also set up some interesting wobbles and oscillations if mishandled. Best advice, according to Guy, is simply to come to a halt, let things settle and have another go.

The walkaround is fairly standard for a single engine piston aircraft, with various checks of fluids, control surfaces and undercarriage – the tailwheel is fixed and semi-steerable with differential braking.

Climbing into the cockpit was my next challenge. Guy advised me to back up to the wing-leading edge aside the cockpit and use my arms to lever myself into a sitting position on the wing. You then swing your feet inside the footwells and raise your backside over the canopy sill to plop down into the seat. Guy, of course, is well practiced at this and made it look easy. I ended up with one leg in, one outside and had to drag my left leg in after me.

When I was finally settled in, the next strange sight was the blue plastic handle of what looked like a ski pole alongside the left cockpit wall. This turned out to be the air brake. With no flaps and a very efficient wing, the Grob Able needs assistance to slow down to landing speed and the barn door-like airbrake which pops up out of the wings is the control you need for this. It’s unusual the first time you deploy it but is something you soon get used to.

A scan around the instrument panel makes it clear that a level of refurbishment has taken place. This looks and feels like a brand-new machine instead of a rebuild. An electronic engine flight information screen with temperatures, pressures and voltages leaps out alongside more traditional-looking gauges and chunky switches used to start up and manage various systems.

The thing I enjoyed most about the cockpit was the superb visibility thanks to a liberal use of clear Perspex, even down at my feet where the view of the ground was sensational. Ready to go and after Guy guided me through the start-up procedure and taxi to the active runway, we were soon on our way with a very short takeoff and were climbing away from climbing away from the runway at Lasham, nestled in the English countryside west of London and home of the largest gliding club in Europe.

Like any first flight, it’s a good exercise to try some progressively steeper turns, and it was interesting to find out for myself how the Able responds to control inputs in various configurations. Increase the speed and the ailerons feel very stiff, making rapid changes in direction challenging. But slow down a bit and those turns become easier and feel much lighter. As I became used to the feel, I enjoyed rapid roll reversals and pulling on some G as we sped around the turns. All great fun.

As a taildragger pilot I’m well used to using my feet on the rudder pedals, and the Able certainly demands that you keep in balance. This is particularly pronounced when it comes to stalling. We tried this with the throttle closed to start with. Sure enough, I didn’t push quite enough rudder to keep the wings up and we dipped into the start of an incipient spin before recovering and restoring us to straight and level flight. Next, we tried a stall with full power on. The nose high attitude was somewhat comical as we wallowed around at low speed, me pedaling furiously to try to hold the wings straight and avoid the spin.

All too soon we were heading back to Lasham airfield’s circuit and my first motor glider landing. Of course, Guy had to cut the engine again to demonstrate a glider approach. We followed this around until a short final, opting to go around and make a normal powered approach. With no flaps, those airbrakes came into their own and the Able coasted down, requiring a hint of a flare and hold off until the wheels settled onto the grass thanks to a very forgiving undercarriage.

I’d certainly recommend the Able for some fun and pure flying. Guy explains that he happily amasses many miles in his motor gliders, with fuel economy being a particular benefit as well as the ability to shift between power flight and soaring as the mood (and weather) takes you. Incredibly, they can stay aloft for more than seven hours. Working with Grob, Aerobility has hit on an excellent initiative to breathe some new life into these much-loved machines. Hopefully they will see many years of service ahead in their post-military careers.

If you’d like to find out more, including how to buy one of these machines, check out www.g109able.org

Aerobility is unique in that it’s run largely by disabled aviators, for disabled people. And it is not just for those who are wheelchair-bound. Many have hidden disabilities. Before COVID-19 sparked a global pandemic, the charity was supporting around 1,000 disabled people a year through its various activities. All who walk through the doors of the Aerobility HQ at Blackbushe Airport, located on the borders of Hampshire, Berkshire and Surrey, later leave with a profound realization: “If I can fly an airplane, what else can I do?” Some past flyers have gone on to continue flying, with some securing a Private Pilot License.

Yet despite the Chicago convention, which allows pilots who pass standard fitness and medical criteria to obtain a pilot medical certificate, many countries still make it extremely difficult, if not impossible, for people with disabilities to fly themselves. One of the most significant hurdles for disabled people to overcome is a flight test. Often this involves an examiner determining whether the disabled pilot can control their aircraft equally as well as an able-bodied pilot at the same point of their training.

Yet many pilots with disabilities go on to pass such tests. Approved modifications can be made to aircraft to enable some controls to be activated using alternative means, such as the rudder being moved with a hand-controller instead of the more familiar foot pedals. Such sensible adaptations have existed for many years and by now perhaps shouldn’t be quite so remarkable.

But sadly, more countries have yet to open up flying to disabled people. Talking to Aerobility’s top team at the charity’s recent virtual Armchair Airshow – broadcast from Biggin Hill Heritage Hangar in May – the example of Africa was cited, where disability aviation is pretty much unheard of. Even in Europe, where it might be mistakenly assumed that aviation is more sophisticated than in some parts of the world, a number of countries still do not recognize, understand or support disabled flying. It’s nothing short of a scandal when you consider how powerful flying can be to support the mental health of disabled people.

Aerobility trustee and Royal Navy veteran Neil Tucker was a successful entrepreneur when he suffered devastating injuries in a motorcycle accident. He subsequently lost his business and freely admits he was in a dark corner and quite vulnerable, having lost his left leg and the use of his left arm in the crash. Learning to fly with Aerobility renewed his enthusiasm for life – his sense of achievement was incredible, he said – and today, Neil is a trustee of the charity.

“Anything is possible,” Tucker said. “When you get up in the sky you are just another voice on the radio. Many of those who find the charity may only do one flight with us. But it is a life step and a transformational point. The sense of community in aviation grabs you as soon as you walk through the door. My message to any disabled person who is struggling is, don’t be scared, don’t think you can’t do it.’’

Tucker explained how frustrating being shut out of aviation is for would-be disabled pilots and their instructors who know they can achieve their goals, but it’s not part and parcel of the culture of certain countries.

“You can do it and it’s possible. It’s not dangerous and we won’t come tumbling out of the sky because we have a disability,” Tucker said. “It’s not about legality but the ability to get a medical that will allow you to fly.”

I was also moved listening to young Harvey Matthewson, Aerobility’s aviation activities officer, who began flying with the charity after a trip to Africa convinced him to conquer his lifelong fear of flying. He gained his private pilot’s license in 2019.

Harvey, who has cerebral palsy, said: “When you go flying your mind clears and you leave your problems on the ground. When you get back, you’re allowed to start your life again from a new position of clarity. I would recommend it for anyone, even if they’re not interested in aviation. Taking control of an aircraft – for a disabled person who may be reliant on others and be very constrained on the ground – you are suddenly able to move an aircraft in three dimensions. It can be very liberating, and that magic can leak into other parts of your life. It could help you to do better at school or gain the confidence to get your first job.”

Another example of the difficulties some disabled pilots face was someone with cerebral palsy who learned to fly with Aerobility. He had a UK based license but post-Brexit his flying has been stopped because of where he lives within the European Union. The country now does not recognize his UK license, which enabled him to fly with his disability.

More could and should be done to lobby various states that such discrimination has no place in the modern world.

It’s not just getting disabled people aloft that is keeping Aerobility’s chief executive Mike Miller-Smith busy right now. He’s excited to be doing new things such as working with the commercial air transport industry to increase accessibility for those who most need it. “Commercial travel is still difficult for people with disabilities. It’s still tricky to travel on an airliner,” Miller-Smith explained.

Mainstream media frequently highlight cases of disabled passengers being abandoned in their wheelchairs for hours at time or being left onboard aircraft until a suitable piece of lift equipment can be found so they can leave.

Looking further ahead, Aerobility is also working with the Urban Air Mobility and eVTOL industries to ensure accessibility is built in from design for disabilities of all types. So, the future is looking brighter for the UK’s keen disabled pilots and hopefully commercial passengers.

Green shoots of recovery in 2022

After a disappointing 2021 where a hoped-for recovery stalled, airport operators are looking forward to better times as 2022 has begun to indicate improved conditions for the hard-hit sector. According to the Airports Council International (ACI), the leading representative body for the world’s airports, passenger traffic increased 25% year-on-year (y/y) in 2021 to 4.5 billion globally. But it remained 51% below 2019 levels.

 Traffic up 25% y/y in 2021 but down 51% vs 2019. Source: ACI

For 2022 and beyond, the outlook for the airports sector is positive as the large-scale roll-out of vaccination programs globally (c.60% achieved in most geographies by end-1Q22) has helped to slow the spread of COVID, and the air travel and tourism industries have resumed their upward climb. Leisure bookings for summer (June to August, traditionally the busiest and most profitable season) have already surpassed 2019 levels and will likely propel the expected 2022 recovery. Aided by the easing international travel restrictions, corporate travel is improving faster than expected, touching the highest level since the pandemic began.

Globally, short-haul business travel witnessed strong growth in April and surpassed 2019 levels by 24%. In the coming months, we will also see a strong recovery in the medium-and long-haul markets which were down 5% and 8% respectively below pre-pandemic levels.

Leisure and corporate booking higher than the Pre-Pandemic level. Source: Mastercard Economics Institute

We expect that airports with a higher mix of domestic traffic will recover faster versus international hubs, which will take a little longer. The positive indicators seen in 2022 thus far should be set in the wider context of the sector’s long journey towards pre-pandemic volumes. The major data providers covering the sector do not see such a full recovery occurring until 2024 at the earliest.

Global air travel passenger recovery only by 2024. Source: Dufry

Airlines shifting strategic focus from capex (towards capacity growth) to optimization (improving utilization)

Part of the challenge which airports will grapple with between now and 2024 is the correlation between their revenues and those of the airlines they serve. Airlines themselves are dealing with the financial legacy of the pandemic – airline industry losses are expected to reach $US11.6 billion in 2022 (vs. $US51.8 billion in 2021) with cumulative losses of $US201 billion from 2020-2022. An industry which once focused on expanding capacity has shifted its strategy to achieving higher yields by optimizing load factors by enforcing considerable capacity discipline. This is chiefly driven by lower traffic growth and significant fuel price concerns.

The industry has witnessed escalating consolidation, bankruptcies and unprofitable route cuts in many mid-size and small markets, as well as mergers as part of global alliances. Capacity reduction now matters less to airlines, as they are entering into alliances and Joint Ventures (JVs) to share profit and cooperate on schedules. As a result, many airports have witnessed fewer services from airlines. Airports that have a hub carrier or a dominant airline (which accounts for greater than 40% of the airport’s capacity) are highly reliant on the airline’s future capacity plans and could be severely impacted by any cuts in capacity plans due to staff shortages and rising fuel prices, as well as aircraft delivery delays (for example British Airways recently announced its plans to cut capacity by 5% over the summer due to a lack of staff – this will have a big impact on Heathrow airport).

Currently, both full-service carriers and low-cost carriers (LCCs) practice similar capacity discipline, leaving some small and medium-sized hub airports incapacitated to challenge their bigger, nearby rivals on price or service. Moreover, LCCs’ rapidly expanded share (35% of the global air travel market) poses a threat to airports as LCCs are cost-focused and employ a more flexible model for deploying aircraft in response to dynamic profit opportunities.

Increase in airport charges inevitable, but airlines plan to push back

In the last two years, airports have delayed the planned increase in aeronautical charges (their major revenue generator at 50-60% of total revenue). Some airports have even provided relief to airlines, partially waiving the charges. However, going forward, we expect airports to steadily raise the charges to repay and service their mounting debt. They may tweak the charges (expected to continue over the next five to seven-year period) to recover their 2020 and 2021 losses. Recently, Amsterdam Schiphol Airport (72 million passengers in 2019) has been given permission by the Dutch regulator to apply a 37% hike in airport charges over the next three years.

Non-aeronautical revenue slowly picking up while cargo traffic provides a lifeline

Non-aeronautical revenue, which accounts for 35-40% of total airport revenue, has started recovering slowly as many retail outlets and duty-free shops have resumed operations with a limited capacity. However, encouraging travel demand and continued easing of travel restrictions offer a ray of hope to airport retailers. Dufry, the world’s biggest airport retailer, has now re-opened around 85% of its shops globally (greater than 90% of its sales capacity). It reported organic net sales growth of 144.5% y/y in 1Q22 and estimates April 2022 organic growth at 176.2% (vs 2021).

Cargo revenue, which witnessed record growth at the peak of the pandemic, is expected to remain robust in 2022 (IATA estimates 13% growth in demand in 2022 vs 2019). This was mainly due to a rise in e-commerce demand across regions and the need for effective air freight to support global supply chains. Belly cargo (transportation of goods via passenger aircraft) is also picking up as airlines resume more flights and increase capacity. Nevertheless, it will take time to recover to its pre-pandemic levels.

Airports’ credit profiles are improving

Most rated airports are investment-grade. Currently, rating agencies have placed a stable to negative outlook on their existing rating given the uncertainties surrounding traffic recovery (full recovery expected by 2024). However, their prospects are improving with most airports recording high treble-digit y/y traffic growth rates in Q1 2022 (for example, Heathrow +575%, Dubai +239%, and Paris +230%).

Nonetheless, the credit profile of airports hinges on significant government back-up in terms of capital injections and other programs (such as the Airport Rescue Grant). The impact of the Russia-Ukraine conflict is likely to be minimal overall and only a few countries’ airports, including Finland, Estonia, Germany, and Italy, will be impacted, which are among the top 10 international destinations for Russian tourists. However, the negative impact on Russian airports is likely to be material, due to the international sanctions (Russian aviation blog).

Fixed costs make up a large share of airports’ costs, not surprising for capital-intensive businesses. Notwithstanding the lower scale of operations (attributable to terminal closure, layoffs etc.), almost all airports are operating at a loss. Airports have drastically cut operating expenditure (OpEx) and deferred growth (CapEx) to remain afloat, aided by surplus current capacity to cater to the demand for the next couple of years before airports recover fully.

Moreover, given airports’ systemic importance in the economy, governments and other stakeholders (including creditors which have already waived/are planning to waive financial covenants) will likely continue their strong support. Also, given the elevated fuel costs and stretched balance sheets, the potential bankruptcy of unhedged/weaker airlines with a substantial stake in airport operations is a key concern.

 Evolution of unit revenues and costs per passengers (2014–2020, indexed 2014=100). Source: ACI World Economic dataset

Airports with a high proportion of international traffic are expected to recover more slowly due to continuing travel restrictions in two key markets: the US (which permits only fully vaccinated flyers to travel) and China (which is still pursuing its zero-COVID-19 policy and has imposed strict restrictions). However, governments worldwide are unlocking travel restrictions to prop up travel, tourism and trade. ACI believes that the COVID-19 pandemic will continue to erode airports’ revenue in 2022, which will likely shrink an additional $US60.8 billion and stand at 72.6% of 2019 revenue. In our view, revenue losses will likely continue in 2023 in the sector.

We believe the strong growth in passenger traffic in recent months will likely sustain due to high levels of vaccination, easing mobility restrictions and pent-up travel demand. This, together with the expected increase in airport charges, hints at easing fiscal strains, positioning airports to return to profitability. This, in turn, will likely ratchet up its ability to achieve credit metrics commensurate with its existing ratings by 2024. Also, many airports successfully entered the market in 2022 through increased debt issuances, which also signals a return to normalcy. However, the material impact of any new COVID-19-related lockdowns or an escalation of the Russia-Ukraine conflict could prolong airports’ woes until 2025, which is something that investors will need to bear in mind.

About the author. Nishant Mishra, Associate Director at Acuity Knowledge Partners, has close to 18 years of work experience in investment research, including 14 years at Acuity Knowledge Partners, with a focus on the transportation, utilities, capital goods and energy sectors. With expertise in both equity and fixed income research, he currently leads teams that provide research support to European buy- and sell-side clients. The work involves building detailed financial models, distressed debt analysis, writing initiation reports and assisting clients with investment decisions for investment-grade, high-yield and distressed-debt companies in developed and emerging markets. He acts as a single point of contact for clients and ensures the team delivers high-quality output in line with SLAs. He holds a Master of Business Administration (Finance) and a Bachelor of Business Administration.

“Aviation is the sort of industry where usually it would be difficult to imagine an array of animals taking care of some of the procedures. They usually had connotations of disruption and danger. But as of late, we’ve seen not only specially trained dogs and cats appear in airports across the world, but also a wider array of both domesticated and wild animals. Some of the most well-known cases of successful cooperation between animals and aviation come from a number of airports in both Europe and North America.”

Vygaudas Usackas, Member of the board of Directors and Chairman of the Aviation Safety Committee

Safety of the skies ensured by falcons

According to Usackas, a great example of such synergy has been the employment of hawks in several of Poland’s airfields and airports to keep the take-off and landing airspace clear of smaller birds.

Bird strikes – collisions between one or more smaller birds and aircraft – have long been a headache, causing serious harm to both. However, methods that were previously used to scare birds off airport grounds, have been heavily revised because they were seen to be unethical. Now, a bioethical management solution – the help of falconry – is in place at Wroclaw Airport, Poland, for example.

“As birds of prey, they circle around the airport’s territory and naturally repel any smaller birds that could fall into its talons,” explains Usackas. “The smaller birds, then, avoid flying anywhere near where the falcon’s hunting grounds are. This way, falcons ensure the safety of the runways at airports.”

Air quality officers – honeybees

Another type of winged creature that can be now found at airports is honeybees. Surprisingly, bees have caused quite a ruckus at several airports in Europe and North America over the years. Pittsburgh International Airport in the US, for example, had a swarm of thousands of bees grounding an aircraft for hours, interrupting refuelling and baggage loading.

Such disruptions, caused by travelling swarms of honeybees looking for a new home, have launched numerous projects that not only provided apiaries for the little workers but have also assisted in monitoring air quality. By housing honeybees within airport grounds, scientists are able to measure the level of toxins, heavy metals, and hydrocarbons in the honey collected, and track emissions and overall carbon footprint.

Landscaping and maintenance handled by goats

While overgrown lawns might not seem like a big threat at airports, they still invite trouble. Unkempt landscapes bring more insects that, in turn, attract small birds. Thus, airports keep such areas maintained to reduce the risk of drawing in smaller birds. However, using heavy machinery and herbicides can seriously affect the environment.  Looking for more eco-friendly ways to deal with landscape maintenance, several airports, like Chicago O’Hare International Airport in the US, have turned to barn animals to take care of that.

“The O’Hare Airport is a great example of how airports are ditching herbicides and noisy machinery, instead employing goats and sheep to mow the grass in a sustainable way,” notes Usackas. “They also help to mow areas that are hard to reach by machines or the vegetation is especially thick – it’s a perfect alternative to harmful chemicals.”

However, in some airports, goats and sheep can fall prey to coyotes and dangerous snakes, so airports therefore also employ llamas or donkeys to act as bodyguards for the grass-eaters.

When it comes to animals and aviation, the two have had a rather tense relationship. Over the decades, there have been many instances of bird strikes, deer wandering onto runways, or even wild bees swarming aircraft and causing disruptions to flights. However, a number of airports have taken steps toward accepting wildlife and creating a one-of-a-kind synergy between nature and people.

Current projections indicate that the aviation industry will inject up to £148 billion in funding the booming demand for new aircraft by 2023 and even more in the succeeding years. The need to acquire new aircraft to meet the requirements for increased aircraft capacity will likely push airlines to consider alternative ways to avoid the financial burden and other challenges of purchasing them. As a result, aircraft leasing may emerge as the most attractive option even for airlines seeking to increase their capacity, albeit temporarily.

Today, many airlines are less concerned about when demand will return. Indeed, the pressing question is how they will respond to the challenge of the increasing aviation demand. For many, passenger recovery would mean more aircraft departures and increased utilization which may have a net negative impact on pilot supply.

Regarding magnitude, the expected decline in global pilot supply will hit 34,000 pilots between now and 2025. However, the figure may clock at 50,000 in the worst-case scenario, signaling real challenges for small and big carries. The outright reasons explaining the pilot deficit problem include the increasing numbers of pilots going into retirement, defections, change of careers, furloughs, and fleet growth.

The pilot shortage problem may compel some airlines to enter into short-term dry lease agreements, where they hand over some of their aircraft to other companies with a bigger supply of in-service pilots rather than cancelling hundreds of flights due to flight shortages. However, an increase in demand for dry leasing by major airlines will ultimately cause a leasing deficit, as the number of carriers pursuing ACMI solutions exceeds that of airlines providing such services. Even with such big players like Lufthansa (LHAB) (LHA), which in their latest strategy is reactivating temporarily parked aircraft and the use of seasonal wet-lease capacities, might not be enough to meet the demand.

Conceivably, some airlines may experience aircraft shortages, given that part of their existing fleet cannot return to service because they require maintenance. As a result, this will push the demand for Maintenance, Repair and Overhaul (MRO) services. Current forecasts indicate that the value of the aircraft MRO market will increase from £57.96 billion in 2021 to £79.47 billion by 2028 due to the growing demand for MRO services.

MRO market drivers point to a possibility that the market may experience problems providing extra capacity, meeting the operational demands, and maintaining the expected functional conditions for aircraft maintenance, repair, and overhaul as the demand surpasses available capacity. A shortage in supply for MRO services from existing providers would translate to more airlines pursuing other options, such as ACMI solutions to have their aircraft serviced.

The International Air Transport Association (IATA) data indicate that the demand for global cargo aviation has continued to soar despite the challenging operating and financial backdrop.

During the pandemic, the aviation industry noted a 54% decline in belly freight in the reported figures in 2019. It is expected that more than 800 wide-body aircraft operating in cargo aviation will retire from services, meaning that the available belly capacity will go below pre-COVID levels. For many airlines, the only feasible way to get themselves out of the situation is by initiating dry lease agreements with other carriers to increase their cargo capacity. However, this may not provide a sustainable solution to the surging cargo aviation demand. The available ACMI operators may start to experience challenges in servicing many airlines seeking to enter into leasing agreements.

If the current trends are anything to go by, the rundown is that low-cost carriers (LCCs) will become the next big thing in commercial aviation. LCCs such as Wizz Air and Ryanair have emerged as some of the biggest winners since the pandemic, with their monthly passenger traffic increasing by 10% and 5% of their 2019 figures. Along with this trend, more LCCs have started to emerge, with companies like Akasa Air of India, Arajet of the Dominican Republic, and Bonza Air of Australia making their headway into the low-cost segment.

These agencies fish for specific professionals for clients (companies that need specialized manpower). And like any other businesses, the bottom line is how to make money. The almighty profit.

Nowadays, recruiting is big business. Most recruitment agencies or companies specialize in specific job descriptions. Predominantly, human resources and talent acquisition agencies are big leaders in this kind of recruitment. If, like so many others in the aviation world, you lost your job or have been furloughed, you have probably registered your résumé with a recruitment agency. 

I would recommend that you do your due diligence when choosing who to depend on for your next career move. A number of factors will determine how long it will take to find a job with a recruitment agency, including budget, marketing strategies, connections to aviation companies, and the recruitment staff. Personally, I would look at the company’s track record. How active have they been since the end (almost) of the pandemic and are they staffed by people who know the business? Are they really aviation recruitment specialists or are they from another profession entirely and have simply decided on a new career?

Why is this so important? Well, if you want to hire a pilot, you need to have a pilot or an experienced aviation recruiter who knows what to look for. A brain surgeon recruitment company won’t have pilots on staff to recruit brain surgeons, will it? 

I know some aviation recruitment agencies that don’t have any pilots on staff. Can you imagine? You are the director of flight operations and need to hire pilots for your fleet of Airbus. You want to do business with a recruitment company that has at least one experienced pilot on staff with a history of flying similar or equivalent aircraft. That knowledge is so important and will be the difference between night and day when he or she selects the right candidate from their pool of pilots.

It’s not rocket science, but it is vitally important if you have lost your job and are barely surviving while waiting for your next opportunity. Your recruitment agency is your lifeline to the job market and they should be working for you. It is all about attracting aviation companies who are actively looking for candidates, and having the right recruitment staff to select the right people for the job opening. It’s no guarantee but it’s good to know that your résumé or application is in safe hands.

At AeroTime, we care about our candidates. They give us the responsibility to search and find the right position. We are ethically committed to our candidates and are dedicated to them. We have over half a century of experienced aviation professionals on staff who care.

Be safe everyone and happy landings

Growing up, I read as many biographies of Spitfire pilots as I could find. Like many children of my generation, I built countless Airfix kits, stringing the models from my bedroom ceiling and staring at them as I lay on my bed, wondering what it would feel like to fly one. I studied the aircraft’s beautiful form and knew every detail of her elliptical wings, Merlin engine and cockpit controls. Obsessing about the Spitfire felt a lot like unrequited love. But then one day, I finally got to fly her.

Having written about aviation for many years, in 2012 a then-rare opportunity arose to take to the skies with the Aircraft Restoration Company based at Duxford, a former Royal Air Force fighter station, which received the very first Spitfires delivered to the frontline. ARC is world-renowned for its skill in returning historic aircraft to flight, including many Spitfires. I had already been astonished to be invited to sit in an incredibly rare Mark 1 Spitfire, which ARC engineers had rebuilt from a wreckage dredged up from a French beach. Now I would be climbing aboard PV202, a two-seat Tr.IX model built as a single seater in 1944 before being converted post-war with dual controls added. The anticipation was almost too much to bear.

Years later, I remember little about that first experience, save for the incredible power of the Merlin and the sight of England’s green fields as I looked across the wings with their red and blue roundels. Thankfully, I have a set of superb photographs taken by a photographer from the newspaper I was working on at the time. The smile on my face in those pictures is priceless. I grinned for days afterwards. But what I do recall clearly is an overwhelming sense of emotion as we performed a victory roll over Duxford; my entire family there to watch me fulfil a dream. And, as we were upside down over the field, I was able to look up through the canopy and see them frantically waving from the ground below. 

Just when I thought a once-in-a-lifetime experience would remain a one-off, I was generously offered another flight in the same aircraft. A decade on, with many more hours of taildragger time in my own logbook and a determination to make the most of the experience, I prepared myself fully. I went to fly a Harvard, the Second World War training machine on which most Spitfire pilots learned to handle heavy piston-engined warbirds. It was a worthwhile exercise and filled me with confidence for the flight ahead. 

On the day I climbed back into PV202, I felt instantly at home as my hands fell back onto her controls. Flying with Lee Proudfoot, one of the UK’s most experienced air display pilots, I was delighted when he handed me control straight after takeoff, as the wheels clunked up into their bays. He generously allowed me to fly the entire trip right up to final approach. 

Surprisingly, my own Chipmunk has nicer handling controls than a Spitfire. The faithful Chippie is renowned for its well-harmonized controls, which means the forces are the same whether you’re moving the stick left or right, forward or back. In contrast, the Spitfire feels twitchier in pitch, although she rolls beautifully. This manifested itself in my ham-fisted attempts at aerobatics. I was pulling too hard and loading us up with G-force at the bottom of loops. Be gentle, that elevator is sensitive! With practice I’m sure the ‘feel’ would become second nature, and each maneuver was improving as we danced around the skies.

Starting up the Spitfire is always an experience. The Merlin thunders into life with a huge cloud of exhaust which stings your eyes and throat as it envelops the cockpit, fire often spurting out of the stubs as the V12 engine crackles and rumbles. Once the canopy is closed the sound is more subdued – at least until takeoff. Although modern operators of the Spitfire do not push the rpm up to full power to preserve the engine life, there is still a pronounced kick up the backside as the throttle is advanced. The sensation is of being pushed back into your seat as the aircraft accelerates. And it just keeps building as you race across the grass. And then that blissful moment as lift takes hold and your Spitfire is back in her element, soaring into the blue where she belongs.

There are few things as pleasurable as carving turns in a Spitfire, guiding her through the air with a mere finger and thumb on the spade grip of the control column and looking out through the unrestricted view of the bubble canopy. I defy anyone to feel unemotional as the mind inevitably wanders to what this aircraft represented to so many people around the world. The Hurricane registered more kills during the pivotal Battle of Britain. The Mustang took the Allied fight into the heart of Nazi Germany later in the war. But for many, the Spitfire remains the conquering image of freedom, symbolising the memory of those brave young pilots of all nationalities who flew her into combat and the ground crews who dedicated themselves to maintaining her.

All too soon it’s time to land back at Duxford and we set up the aircraft for the approach, coasting around behind the Imperial War Museum for the right base to land. With the Spitfire’s long nose, it is impossible to see straight ahead, so we fly a continuous curve to improve the view, relying on peripheral vision to judge the touchdown. We make a tiny bounce as the undercarriage absorbs the impact and then allow the aircraft to slow down on the rollout. No danger of putting her on her nose if you don’t resort to braking heavily. Taxiing back to the ARC hangars, I roll back the canopy, resting my arm on the side of the fuselage and drink in the views and sensations. 

Every Spitfire flight is unique and these days it’s possible to buy the experience for yourself. I can’t recommend it highly enough. Life never seems quite the same once you’ve flown a Spitfire.

With thanks to John Romain, George Romain, Lee Proudfoot, and Jack McBride.

Many of these air sports are regulated on the global stage by the Fédération Aéronautique Internationale (FAI), based in Switzerland. But several individual countries also have their own aero clubs, such as the National Aeronautics Association in the US and the UK’s Royal Aero Club, which was founded in 1901 as a club for balloonists. The role of these bodies is to co-ordinate, promote and protect all forms of recreational and competitive air sport.

They are doing a worthy job fighting for air-minded enthusiasts around the world at a time when many of these sports are battling to attract new, younger participants amid the many distractions of our digital-focused society. Ironically, aviation has always been at the forefront of technology and is working to be a part of the solution to the world’s challenges, such as the need to decarbonise.

After the first air race took place in Europe – the Prix de Lagatinerie in 1909 – the merits of using healthy competition to drive technological developments among manufacturers – and indeed nations – was widely recognised. People simply wanted to find out how high, how fast or how far these new-fangled aeroplanes could go.

This trend really took off, so to speak, just three years later when the glamorous Schneider Trophy air contests began to captivate participants, politicians and spectators alike. Most famously, the intense rivalries sparked by the Schneider Trophy led directly to the development of one of the world’s most iconic fighter aircraft, the Supermarine Spitfire, which went on to play a starring role in victory during the Second World War. Without the racing, would Supermarine’s designer RJ Mitchell have developed the Spitfire so successfully in time to repel a Nazi invasion of Great Britain?

In peacetime, sports aviation is a popular pastime for millions of people around the world, be it building and flying model aeroplanes and kites to hot air ballooning and even so-called gravity sports such as BASE jumping, bungee jumping and wingsuit flying. There is a fast-developing movement too of electric-powered and vertical takeoff and landing aircraft (eVTOL) which aims to race these futuristic machines in a modern-day version of the Schneider Trophy contests.

Air racing that would be more recognisable to the Wright Brothers continues to this day in various guises, such as the now defunct Red Bull Air Race (which has been taken over by a new organisation) or the famous Reno Air Races held in Nevada every September. As a spectacle, Reno has few rivals such is the colourful display of souped-up piston-engined and jet fighters tearing around the oval track, some at speeds of close to 500mph in the case of the Unlimited class.

The amazing thing about sports aviation is that pretty much anyone can get involved. Yes, it can be expensive depending on your particular preference for aerial adventure. But many of the activities classed as air sports are very accessible, such as model and kite flying, with many people working their way up as time and money allows.

It takes deep pockets to compete at the likes of a Reno or Red Bull-style air race but there are cheaper ways to get involved in racing, such as through the UK’s Records, Racing and Rally Association, which oversees handicapped air racing, British and World aviation records (set by UK based pilots, companies or aircraft), and formal air rallies.

Most of its activities involve the arranging of handicapped air races including the Schneider Trophy and King’s Cup culminating in the British Air Racing and European Air Racing Championships in the UK, Northern Europe, Channel Isles, and Ireland. The sport’s motto is ‘Fly Low, Fly Fast, Turn Left’.

Talk to any of the pilots who’ve competed and it’s clear the thrill of air racing is as compelling today as it was a century ago, as well as accepting the challenge of flying your aircraft as accurately around a timed course. The set-up means that it doesn’t matter how powerful your aircraft is – that’s where the handicapping comes in – merely that you can fly it as quickly as possible relatively to the other racers. If the handicappers have succeeded, the pack will arrive in the latter stages of the course at roughly the same time and the ‘race’ is then for the finishing line.

So, what brings such a diverse range of people from across the social and demographic spectrum to sports aviation and keeps them coming back for more? Many hobby pilots – never use the word amateur! – I know talk of the fact that flying is the ultimate escape. The activity focuses the mind because from the minute you leave the ground you are completely responsible for yourself and your own safety. Perhaps counter-intuitively it is therapeutic to concentrate on a single thing. That means any of life’s usual worries or distractions must be left on terra firma.

But, by my reckoning, sports aviation it is ultimately about an expression of three-dimensional freedom which for most people can only be found in the air. Although aviation is one of the most heavily regulated activities in the world, when your wheels leave the ground and it’s just you and the machine, a sense of serenity and accomplishment descends. As the Aerobility disabled flying charity puts it: ‘If I can fly an aeroplane, what else can I do?’

As an incipient domain, ESG has become the new focal point for airline companies, investors, regulatory bodies, aviation operators, and lessors worldwide. For a greater reason, there is increased focus on how the industry can achieve a paradigm shift towards environmental-friendly solutions, green financing efforts to drive sustainable performance and creating a positive impact in the global community.

Global airlines have embraced ESG efforts not only as a framework to drive sustainability but also to differentiate themselves and stand out in the highly competitive markets by making their brands more attractive to sustainability-conscious customers and other stakeholders.

The current situation is that the ESG landscape is nothing more than just an ‘alphabet soup’ as regards where different global carriers stand and their efforts to implement the environmental, social, and corporate governance objectives.

While global airlines in Europe, Latin America, Asia, and other countries around the world continue to invent solutions to address sustainability issues, there arose a more pressing issue that has created a clarion call for all industry stakeholders; the COVID-19 pandemic. The ongoing global pandemic has highlighted a compelling need for airlines to build resilience and implement long-term strategies to cushion the entire industry from high-impact shocks that have threatened to sabotage the ongoing efforts to address ESG issues.

Looking at ESG from an environmental perspective, we can contend that the aviation sector has made considerable progress in addressing the formidable carbon emissions problem. As of now, the industry accounts for over 2.4% of ambient carbon emissions reported globally. Fast forward, the industry will have to ramp up its efforts to achieve the 80% improvement in CO2 emissions per the regulations outlined by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), European Union Emission Trading System (EU ETS), and those stipulated by the ICAO under the Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation (CORSIA). The anticipation is that these regulations will provide both a short-term and long-term solution for the aviation CO2 problem and give a rundown of how global airlines can lower their net emissions footprint.

In some regions, for example Europe, airline companies have experienced insurmountable pressures to implement sustainability programs from environmentally conscious travelers, some of whom have started ‘flight shaming’ campaigns and blandishing the public to use alternative means of transport. Other global airlines have picked up lessons from the experiences of the European carriers to effectuate environmental obligations and protect their reputations from the growing threat of conscious consumerism among air travelers.

Markedly, COVID-19 has led to a shift in business priorities. Some airlines have buckled down on core operational areas and diverted their attention from environmental objectives.

Additionally, the inflection on addressing various issues related to the aviation culture has provided a better positioning for global airlines and placed them in the path of social sustainability. Even as airline companies continue to implement cost-cutting measures to relieve themselves from the harsh COVID-19 effects, on-time performance, service excellence, and passenger safety have remained at the core of all decision-making processes, notwithstanding the associated costs.

Many airlines have shown increased centeredness on reducing the prevalence of safety-critical incidents to instill confidence in the public and attract more business from air travelers. We are also seeing more airlines trying to improve labor relations with their employees and address the persistent power struggles with union leaders. Altogether, these efforts have a positive outcome on the satisfaction among stakeholders and a parallel effect on social scores for global airlines.

Imperceptibly, the global aviation industry has also continued to implement corporate governance practices to deliver a greater stakeholder value, improve compliance with existing business laws, and promote efficiency in decision-making processes. Given the financial uncertainties implicated by the global pandemic, there is a growing need for airlines to create governance strategies and models that will help them deliver their business objectives and meet the competing interests of all stakeholders. These include requirements for transparency, accountability, responsibility, commitment, and social responsibility. With the increased prominence on principles of good governance, we look forward to airline carriers starting to adapt business models that promote their sustainability priorities.

Although the outcomes of ESG remain largely inconsistent, we believe that aviation players who are yet to make ESG a priority should move towards environmental stewardship, social performance and adapt their governance practices and structures to deliver long-term value. Fundamentally, the particularism on ESG improvements will enable airline companies to mitigate the prevalent risks emanating from ESG-themed prospectuses and mounting pressures from various stakeholders.

A reference book co-authored by AeroTime’s very own Recruitment Director and brand-new columnist Captain Michel Treskin aims to demystify each step in the pilot selection process. 

To mark International Pilots’ Day, AeroTime spoke to Michel about the book, what makes a successful pilot and how it feels to join our editorial team. 

“I’m passionate about flying of all types and about the people operating the aircraft,” Michel explains. “My articles will focus on the journey and experiences of those who enjoy being in the wild blue yonder. Plus, I will be discussing and analyzing flying events that might impact the way we fly.” 

Michel, who has a long history of flying, began his aviation career in the Canadian Air Force where he flew jets and tactical helicopters for 13 years and did his ground tour as a pilot selection specialist for the military. Michel was then recruited by the Royal Saudi Air Force as a maintenance test pilot and type rated instructor and examiner on the Pilatus PC-9 turboprop aircraft. After returning to Canada, Michel flew for several airlines and many corporate jet operators and joined Transport Canada as an aviation safety system inspector. He has also worked in Dubai, UAE as a pilot selection specialist, where he selected more than 3,000 pilots for Emirates, conducted more than 10,000 interviews and was an evaluator on Boeing and Airbus aircraft. In 2015, he joined OSM Aviation as head of pilot selection but was furloughed in 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic. So, clearly, he knows his stuff. 

“I have gained a lot of experience and I thought that it would be great for me to pass it on to other pilots going through a selection process,” says Michel. “I’ve conducted over 15,000, if not 20,000, pilot interviews, and I know exactly what to look for.” 

And so, Michel decided to pen The Complete Pilot Selection Handbook, alongside co-writer, flight instructor Stein Mjåtveit, for anyone who is considering becoming a pilot. The book is unique because it is written by pilots, for pilots, and aims to provide readers with details surrounding all phases of the pilot selection, from the initial interview, psychometrics, group exercises, simulator, and core competencies, to the final interview. 

“It doesn’t matter if you’re a cadet, first officer or an experienced Captain, you can open the book and see exactly what airlines and companies are looking for when they’re selecting a pilot,” says Michel, who believes the book can “increase a pilot’s chance of passing by 50%”. 

He continues: “The book covers everything: the simulator assessment, the psychometric assessment, it covers the philosophy of selecting the right pilot and it also gives a pilot, who is starting their career, exactly what they need to work on to become a better pilot.” 

Why do pilots go through a selection process? 

Every pilot is required to go through a selection process before they can join an airline or even a flight academy. But why is that? Well, when a company is preparing to spend thousands of dollars on training, they want to ensure candidates will be successful. Reputable flight academies also have a rigorous selection process that filters out those who might fail. 

“The selection process for me is extremely important. Out of 10,000 pilots, I will probably only select 1,500,” reveals Michel. “When I select a pilot, I can guarantee the company that they will never have a problem with that person, that they will always be top-notch. 

“You have to go through a selection process, even to become a student, because they want to make sure that if you’re going to spend a lot of money on training, they want to make sure you’re going to pass. This is something I also talk about in the book.” 

So, what does it take to become a successful pilot? 

“First of all, a good pilot is a very good flier,” Michel explains. “For me, the most important part is that the pilot is able to control the airplane in all conditions. 

“But a good pilot is also a good manager and a good instructor. They are taking care of the person on the right and actually helping them to grow into a better pilot, while they [also continue] to grow themselves.” 

Equally, Michel also notes that there are ways to identify a pilot who, put simply, probably shouldn’t be flying. 

“There are a lot of pilots who have got through the hoops but when it comes down to the nitty gritty or finesse, they don’t have it and, unfortunately, they’re still flying,” he says. “I’ve seen chief pilots at big companies that could not pass my [flight] simulator, and I’ve seen it so many times.” 

But Michel is also keen to point out that this is often a result of inadequate, or simply bad, training. 

He explains: “If they have received poor training at the beginning, then they will struggle. So, if you can train correctly and [pilots are] given the right tools from the start, then you should be able to form a really good structure.” 

What’s hiring like now? 

As carriers recover from the global health crisis, what is the climate like in pilot recruitment? And are there now fewer barriers in the selection process? 

“There are a lot of pilots out there,” says Michel. “So therefore, it’s a dime a dozen and a lot of companies will actually take whatever is out there. They’ll say, ‘Oh, you flew at this airline before but now you want to join this carrier. Okay, no sweat. We will take you, don’t worry about it’. 

“There is a tendency post-pandemic because there’s a surplus of pilots, that companies will sometimes say, ‘Well, we don’t have time to do this. It’s a lot of money’ as it takes time and money to do a selection process, so they’ll say, ‘Well, don’t worry about it, we’ll just give you a little test. ’. 

“That’s why, I think, we’re seeing a lot of incidents, accidents, and mishaps post-pandemic, because pilots haven’t been flying for a while and now, they get back in the cockpit, [and] think it’s going to come back to them,” he adds. “But it takes a while and it’s not as easy as we think.” 

Instead, Michel argues that companies should continue to ensure that pilots continue to “go through the hoops like they used to before”. 

“After two, three years of not flying, you become extremely rusty,” he says. “We’re not perfect, so we do forget and that’s why, psychologically, there are some issues here and there. And, like I said, that’s why we can see the spike in accidents and incidents in the last year.” 

He adds: “I couldn’t go back [to] flying. I’ve been away for so long. I was born to fly, I’ll fly anything, helicopters, whatever, but to go out there and get a job in the airlines? Never. I’ll never do that again because I can admit to myself, ‘you don’t have it anymore’ and I’m completely okay with that. I’ll go fly a small airplane and have fun.” 

Two pilots, then one, then…? 

After 47 years in the industry, has Michel seen many changes to the way pilots are trained? 

“There are more people becoming pilots, so now they [are referred to] airline ready programs. The program is much more extensive,” he explains. “However, the flying is much easier because automation has been introduced into training. The pilot is more of a system monitor than hands-on. 

“If the system crashes, even though there is backup, you want to make sure that the person in the front can at least bring the aircraft down safely, without people getting hurt and properties being destroyed.” 

“Training has changed a lot. That doesn’t make the person a bad pilot, it’s just that I prefer having an old school guy in the front over a new school guy, but that’s just the way I am.” 

He continues: “We’re all going through this automation phase and, eventually, we’re going to go to the single pilot, then the single pilot will disappear and we’re going to come to artificial intelligence.” 

Over the years, technical advances have made it possible to safely fly a passenger plane with just two pilots. But now there’s talk of things being scaled back to just a single pilot on the flight deck for both commercial and cargo flights. 

“The single pilot will be relying more on the automation,” says Michel. “But what happens if something happens to the pilot? So, there’s a lot of things that we need to think about before we say ‘yes, that’s a good idea’.” 

So, does Michel have any advice for budding pilots? 

“Don’t stop learning,” says Michel. “But also, don’t accept the command just because you’ve got the hours and they offer you the seat. One of my biggest recommendations or tips is never accept the command unless you feel 100% certain that you’re ready. 

“Also, keep on opening the books, be the best you can. Don’t rely on your automatics, fly as much as you can, when you can.” 

While several other similar types, including the Zivko Edge 540, MX Aircraft MX2 and Sukhoi Su-29, all compete on the world stage, the Extra300 has become ubiquitous, arguably defining the requirements for those which have followed. I have been lucky enough to fly several different Extras in a variety of scenarios – from basic aerobatic manoeuvres to air racing demonstrations and even mock aerial combat. The Extra handles them all with ease, which is more than can be said for a keen amateur pilot like myself.

While I can attest that it’s very easy to get things wrong without proper instruction, there are few machines which have brought as wide a smile to my face as flying the Extra. Why? It is the aeroplane’s combination of raw power and manoeuvrability. The merest touch of a fingertip on the stick gives you the sense that you’re flying a thoroughbred that is equally happy as a show pony. 

Flying the Extra can also be an intense physical workout that will leave you exhausted after just 15 minutes aloft practising your aerobatic skills. The aeroplane is stressed to withstand plus and minus 10 times the force of gravity (known as G-force or simply ‘G’). That’s more than enough punishment for the average pilot, even after extensive training. And unlike flying in military jets where high G is sustained during turns, the Extra can go from flying along straight and level at 1G to 9G in the blink of an eye – and back again – just by pulling back hard and fast on the stick, and then relaxing the back pressure. And it will roll through more than 360 degrees in just a second, leaving your head spinning.

If it has a downside, I’d say that’s the tandem seating arrangement – whereby the aircraft is captained from the rear seat with the student in front. This means it can be difficult to comprehend aspects of your lessons once you’re fatigued. And the instructor relies on how their student is verbally responding from the front seat, hence repeated checks of how you’re feeling. It is easy to take on too much in the early phases of your training. It’s always better to know when to knock it off and return to base than persist and end up feeling ill, at least at first.

My first flight in an Extra was with the Blades back in the mid-2000s when the then fledgling aerobatic team began to establish themselves on the airshow and passenger experience scene. Since then, I’ve been up with a number of different training schools, practised Red Bull-style air racing with civilian flying school Ultimate High, and enjoyed a demonstration flight with the now defunct Red Bull Air Race’s own media pilot, which resulted in an impromptu aerobatics lesson in the skies above Porto in Portugal. 

Another memorable hop was a short ride in a beautiful, privately-owned Extra which culminated in a display practice over a grass airfield, leaving me disorientated and wishing I was on the ground. But every time I’ve been stunned by just how great an aeroplane the Extra300 is. It’s always thrilling to strap in as you anticipate the sensations you’re about to experience.

Extra’s canny design, which was revolutionary back in 1987, created an extremely strong structure using advanced materials that created a machine with low weight, extreme agility and high performance from a 300 horsepower, six-cylinder Lycoming engine. This makes for something akin to a rocket ship.

As Red Bull-style air racing returns this year under a new guise and ownership, the Extra will again be used for training upcoming race pilots as well as demonstrations for the media. It is rightly referred to as the aerial equivalent of Formula One motor racing, with upwards of a million spectators turning up to watch at some of the global events in the past. The Extra is perfect for this kind of flying, zipping around through 25-metre-high inflatable pylons laid out as a slalom at speeds of around 250mph. This makes for a thrilling spectacle but is not for the inexperienced. Those seeking to enter must have the right experience, undertake rigorous training, and be signed off as safe by the organisers.

More accessible is competition aerobatics. Several annual events in the UK allow curious pilots to discover more about the sport and to participate in their very first aerobatic competition, under the supervision of an experienced aerobatic pilot.

Although flying the aeroplane around the sky should be second nature for aviators looking to go down this route, the sensations are quite different once the G kicks in with hard manoeuvring. My first Extra flight started with a few gentle wingovers and turns before my ex-Red Arrows instructor gradually wound up to some steeper moves and then we went into some loops.

I had been told to brace for the onset of G. Why? As we walk around or sit on the ground, we are subject to 1G, or one times the force of gravity. During a loop we’d pull about 4G so your body suddenly weighs four times its normal weight. Additionally, all the blood is forced into your legs. As the Gs increase this can lead to blackouts as blood flows out of your head. G-straining techniques such as clenching your buttocks, thighs and stomach help to keep blood in the upper part of the body longer and ward off the adverse effects.

Flying aerobatics in such a capable machine as the Extra is relatively easy. Refining them is much harder. The controls are feather light so for a loop you just need to ensure you are at the right entry speed – about 160 knots – then pull back on the stick until the G-meter registers 3.5 to 4Gs. You’re soon soaring skywards. As the aircraft’s nose rises, it’s best to look to one side along the wing to check you are level as you pass through the horizon. Next you should look above your head to see the ground reappearing. Now your eyes are back to the front (at this point you are pointing directly at the earth, which can be disconcerting the first time you do it), anticipating levelling out and easing off the back pressure on the stick as your nose returns level to the horizon. If you’ve done it well, the aircraft will have described a perfect circle in the sky. You may even feel the bumpy air as you fly back through the wash created by the propeller in the spot where you started from.

More advanced aerobatic figures require training and plenty of practice. Soon you’ll be ready for your first competition. And what better aeroplane to hire to do this than the fabulous Extra300.

Emerging technologies for smaller and sometimes uncrewed air vehicles, such as drones and air taxis, are suited to rechargeable battery power due to their short duration hops. Meanwhile, larger aircraft from regional turboprops to single-aisle airliners need a denser form of energy that is more akin to that provided by jet fuel. Long-haul giants are a long way from being able to decarbonise due to the nature of their missions, as long endurance flights carry many passengers or heavy cargo. These can’t ditch kerosene just yet. Instead, they will look to carbon offsetting using systems of credits, as well as making use of sustainable aviation fuels, which should become more widely available.

For the mid-market challenge, hydrogen is streaking ahead as the potential answer. Aerospace giant Airbus abandoned work on a hybrid-electric demonstrator based on a BAe146 jet. It found that the sheer number of battery cells required to power just one of the aircraft’s four engines would take up the entire passenger cabin and the cargo hold. So, it’s now preferring to focus on the potential of hydrogen propulsion. In February, Airbus’s plans to use a giant A380 to test hydrogen-powered jet engines made headlines as the airframer continues to pursue its aim of delivering a zero-emissions aircraft, albeit much smaller than the superjumbo, into service by 2035. Airbus is exploring engines powered by hydrogen combustion through modified gas turbine engines and hydrogen fuel cells, as well as a range of potential future aircraft shapes.

Driving such initiatives are both push and pull factors. Although there is growing concern and awareness about the impacts of climate change, governments have stated that we can’t rule out air travel all together to combat emissions. Before the COVID-19 pandemic grounded most of the world’s fleet of airliners, aviation accounted for about 2.5% of global emissions. But that number is set to rise as other emitters decarbonise faster than aviation can keep up with. Witness, for example, what’s happening in the automotive sector where the mass adoption of battery and hybrid-electric vehicles is already taking place.

Aircraft manufacturers’ airline and freight customers are also driving the change. Among the airlines, easyJet has been one of the most vocal. Its young customers are increasingly keen to know when they can expect to book a flight on a greener aircraft, prompting the group’s chief executive, John Lundgren to pledge its commitment to reducing easyJet’s environmental impact. The company is already partnered with Wright Electric, which specializes in zero-emission technology, and with Airbus. EasyJet’s website states that by the mid-2030s, a flight with a range of 800 miles could be made on a hydrogen-electric or hydrogen powered aircraft, which could open up popular city connections such as London to Barcelona to zero emissions travel.

Just this month hydrogen’s potential for aviation was given a major endorsement by the UK’s Aerospace Technology Institute with publication of the first report from the FlyZero research project to investigate a zero-carbon emission commercial flight. The initiative brings together experts from across the UK to assess the design challenges, manufacturing demands, operational requirements, and market opportunity of potential zero-carbon emission aircraft concepts.

The FlyZero report concluded that green liquid hydrogen is the most viable zero-carbon emission fuel with the potential to scale to larger aircraft using fuel cell, gas turbine and hybrid systems. In their introduction, FlyZero’s project director Chris Gear and ATI chief executive Gary Elliott wrote: “The aircraft being manufactured today are more efficient than ever before and will increasingly operate using fossil fuel alternatives representing great strides towards our global climate commitments on carbon emissions. But what if we could eliminate carbon emissions altogether? A new era for aviation is on the horizon.”

While the scale of the challenge is huge, the ambition to succeed is strong with investment funding pouring into research and development of the key technologies. But it is not just the new breed of aircraft themselves that need to be created. Infrastructure, wider capabilities, and the regulatory and certification frameworks needed for hydrogen to enter commercial passenger air transport services must also be rapidly developed if large aircraft are to be flying us around by 2035. Particular areas of focus include cryogenic hydrogen fuel systems, gas turbines and airframes for ground and airborne demonstration, the FlyZero report explains. And in parallel, the industry must continue to advance technologies required for sustainable aviation fuels, which is needed alongside hydrogen if we are to meet the net zero by 2050 goal.

FlyZero concludes that it is feasible to hit the 2050 target for regional, narrowbody and midsize market segments but the optimum route to get us there is through acceleration of a large (narrowbody and midsize) commercial aircraft into service. This machine would be able to reach all destinations in the world in a single stop, it says, adding that such an approach would be less commercially risky than developing a narrowbody first and would allow infrastructure development to be focused on fewer, but larger international hub airports.

What if this isn’t achieved? The threat is clear. If aviation fails to decarbonise quickly enough, measures to restrict the industry are likely to protect the planet, with the knock-on effects for national and regional economies dependent on business and leisure flying. But the great prize, FlyZero reports, is that this approach would quickly reduce aviation’s global CO2 emissions, which would occur if 50% of the world’s commercial fleet are hydrogen-powered by 2050.

It’s not going to be easy to hit this target. We are at a significant turning point for aviation, the like of which has not been witnessed since the dawn of the Jet Age transformed the possibilities of flight. The whole sector must play its part in limiting the impacts of climate change and given the development times for new aircraft, we must act now. We owe it to future generations to explore the art of the possible.

The jet trainer will have served in a variety of roles for an astonishing 46 years. It entered service in 1976, having first flown two years earlier as the Hawker Siddeley Hawk, long before the company merged into what is now known as BAE Systems.

Around 1,000 Hawks have been built in various guises, making it the world’s best-selling aircraft of its type. It has provided a stepping-stone for generations of fast-jet pilots, forming the bridge from elementary flying training to the frontline. Unusually for a British-made aircraft, it was even sold to the United States for training Navy pilots as the T-45 Goshawk.

RAF aggressor unit 100 Squadron, let by Wing Commander James Taylor-Head since 2020, will mark the jet’s retirement later this month. With almost 1,100 hours on the aircraft, Taylor-Head first flew the Hawk in 2001, later becoming a flying and weapons instructor on 19(F) Sqn and 208 Sqn where he taught fledgling flyers basic tactics, including air combat, close air support and low-level shooting and bombing.

He explains that the single-engine Hawk established a reputation for its simplicity and reliability and is equally happy skimming the ground at low-level in the valleys or pulling 8G in simulated combat high above the clouds.

This makes for a fun aircraft to fly. I was lucky enough to experience it myself a few years back, flying with the Royal Navy’s 736 Naval Air Squadron, which provided a ship support role, training those at sea how to handle airborne threats.

On the surface, the Hawk is very easy to fly, being no more difficult than a Cessna to steer around the sky, even for a private pilot like me with a handful of jet hours. Because it is a jet, the aircraft has amazing performance but to get the best out of it requires skill, flair, and finesse – something that young fighter pilots need to develop and exactly what the Hawk was designed for. 
The Hawk looks as sleek today as it did in the 1970s and it feels like a sports car. You are at one with the jet, and not just because you’re physically plugged into its systems via your oxygen and communications pipes, inflatable G-suit to counteract the forces of gravity on the body and the lanyards strapping you tightly to its rocket-assisted ejection seat. The controls are also well-harmonized.

As test pilot Andy Blythe told me back in 2014: “It gives you all the sensations and all the buzz you get from a frontline jet”. It’s little wonder, then, that former Hawk pilots fondly remember the sense of achievement they gained from completing a mission.

My flight took off from Royal Navy Air Station Culdrose in Cornwall, on England’s south west coast. I was flown by the then Commanding Officer of 736Sqn, Lieutenant Commander Tim Flatman. Since promoted to Commander, Flatman now heads the UK’s F-35 Operational Conversion Unit, 207 Squadron.

Back then, cocooned inside the tandem cockpit and flying helmet, the noise of the Rolls-Royce Adour engine was muffled, a quiet hiss was the only sign that the jet was alive.

Cleared to begin rolling, Flatman advanced the throttle, powering up the engine, the nose dipping towards the tarmac as the Hawk strained against the brakes. With a nod of the head, Flatman signaled our wingman to release the brakes and we were off, speed building swiftly with wheels rumbling. Quickly airborne, the wheels clunking into their wells, the formation climbed up to circuit height.

The view from the rear seat of the Hawk is superb. Designed as a trainer from the off, the instructor’s position enjoys a commanding view over the nose with just a small portion of the front ejection seat and pilot’s helmet visible in front. 

Inside, instruments and controls revealed the Hawk’s vintage. With traditional ‘steam-powered’ gauges, chunky switches and battleship grey paneling, there is even a pop-up stopwatch mounted into the black coaming. As this aircraft predates the digital age, it’s back to using a map and a compass as the main navigational tools. The newer RAF Hawk T2 brings the cockpit up to date with multi-functional screens and even a heads-up display. The control column is studded with switches for guns, bombs, and trim, while the throttle is a cylinder sticking up from the left side of the cockpit, with a prominent switch for the air brake.

Our training mission that day was to act as so-called ‘red air’, simulating enemy aircraft and missiles ‘attacking’ Royal Navy and allied shipping out at sea to help train sailors in defending themselves from aerial threats.

This required us to storm in at just 250 feet above the sea and at 450 knots (517mph). At this height the sensation of speed is overwhelming, the wave tops whizzing past beneath your wings. I vividly remember feeling as if I could dip my fingertips in the water below. 

Gathering pace, the Hawk arrowed towards our first target, a Royal Navy supply ship, which quickly passed under our nose. Flatman rolled the Hawk into a left-hand turn and pulled into the maneuver. My G-suit inflated as we yanked 4G, and my stomach and legs were gripped in an uncomfortable vice. Looking left our shiny black wing tip appeared to be almost grazing the sea as we carved past the ships below in a wide turn.

The g-force meant my whole body felt four times heavier than normal in the turn, and I struggled to hold up the camera against the incredible force pressing my limbs downwards. As we levelled off, the G receded, and we lined up for another target run.

The next ‘attack’ saw us linking up with a Falcon business jet. This time we acted as a missile ‘launched’ by the Falcon. Flying in very close formation before starting the attack run some 100 miles out from our target ship, we dived to simulate a sea-skimming missile, accelerating as we sped down to 250 feet again.

Ahead of us the ships began evasive maneuvering, wheeling around surprisingly tightly as they tried to shake off the threat by turning head-on towards the incoming missile, presenting their smallest radar cross-section.

Attack sequence completed, Flatman took the jet up through the clouds for some formation aerobatics and to give me a chance to try and fly.

Linking up once more with Blue 2, we tried out some steep turns, wingovers, and barrel rolls. 
With the classic exchange “You have control!”, I took the stick as below us the emerald sea along Cornwall’s golden beaches glimmered in the sunlight. The Hawk felt light and responsive to the merest touch.

For someone who has spent most of their time in propeller aircraft, it’s strange to feel no gyroscopic effect and the rudder pedals are mere footrests. Excess power from the jet engine means the aircraft can do pretty much anything you desire.

With fuel running low, we zipped back to the airfield for a run-and-break into the circuit and a landing. I’ll confess to feeling relieved because, at close to an hour and a quarter, that’s a long sortie for a fast jet novice and I was starting to feel both tired and nauseous. 

Having flown overhead Culdrose in formation, we broke into the circuit with a fast roll and pull as the throttle came back and airbrake deployed. Landing gear is dropped at around 200 knots and flaps selected for the glide down towards the main runway.

In my little Chipmunk taildragger, I’m used to flaring to cushion our arrival. But in the Hawk, the aircraft is flown onto the runway, making the touchdown more emphatic, with a hefty bump as the undercarriage absorbs the impact.

Once back in our parking slot, the Hawk is quickly shutdown and, sitting in the cockpit with my helmet off and canopy open, only the whine of the gyros disturbed my thoughts as I tried to process the exhilarating experience I’d been through. The aircraft is certainly fun and rewarding to fly, akin to a classic sports car with enough to keep even frontline veterans like Tim Flatman interested. 

It’s a shame that soon there’ll be no more opportunities to have another go, at least not in the UK.

Naturally, we seem to gravitate to optimize our professional resilience. But shouldn’t we also focus on building our personal resilience by addressing key human factors and behaviors that we have personally identified need development?  

We have an opportunity to enhance our operational performance and safety by firstly identifying those personal behaviors such as sleep, nutrition, physical activity, relationships and so on. An incremental gain of 1% in each of the identified behaviors soon adds up to a marked increase in overall effective operational performance.  

But it can’t just be one way. Resilience development needs to be supported by the organizational ecosystems that we are part of. A pro-active, non-punitive, ‘just culture’ is required to promote a safe, psychological space that fosters and facilitates resilience development at the individual, team, and organizational level. A simple cost analysis exercise would provide organizations with significant long-term enhancements to safety and performance and, for the bean counters, long-term financial and productivity benefits.   

Resilience development or ‘resilience engineering’ (the ability to build adaptive capacity to perform confidently and competently when faced with unforeseen or unexpected situations) isn’t a new philosophy, but one that needs particular attention within our profession; particularly as the socio-technical interfaces of our operation become increasingly more complex. The implementation of Competency Based Training and Assessment (CBTA) advocated by ICAO (PANS TRG Doc 8968) and EASA’s Evidenced Based Training (EBT) program recognizes that the traditional task-based training approach isn’t fit for purpose as we operate and interact with complex Generation 4 Aircraft, and beyond. We build resilience through exposure to scenarios that stretch the development of our professional competencies as defined by ICAO, and the associated behaviors.  

The pandemic has brought about many changes forcing organizations to adapt their products and processes.  

In Resilient Pilot’s case, it was the impetus for its creation, the goal being to maximize the use of virtual platforms and technology to foster a blended approach to resilience development through mentoring, coaching, and training. It’s become evident that virtual technology will play a significant role in ‘competency to tool’ training, whereby we use the technology to develop resilience through a competency-based, targeted approach utilizing lower fidelity and part-task, interactive, scenario-based training solutions. Why wait six months for the sim?  

This is not just about the pandemic. This is about how we tackle ‘stuff’ in general. The pandemic has simply brought sharp focus to our growing recognition of the need for resilience. 

Self-analysis and evaluation will become increasingly important over the next few years to effectively compliment CBTA and instructor assessment. A key role of the CBTi will be to facilitate self-evaluation, already practiced as a 10th ICAO competency for Air Traffic Management and Controllers, and Aircraft Maintenance Engineers.  

Taking ownership of one’s personal and professional resilience will ensure we emerge from the pandemic robust and operationally ready for new challenges that we may never have encountered before.  

The minimum training required to re-qualify a pilot to the regulatory standard may not be sufficient following either a break in operational status, the loss of qualification due to the COVID-19 crisis, or a prolonged period away from the operational environment, such as maternity leave. Operators and organizations must be prepared to provide training and development above the minimum required by the regulatory authority if they are serious in their objectives to provide proactive resilience development and training. 

Continuous performance-based resilience training and development will be required to ensure pilots enter, re-enter, or continue within the operational environment qualified, proficient, and, most importantly, Confident and Competent.  

This high-level definition of resilience has been refined into two key elements by the Pilot Training Task Force (PTTF) of IATA: “flight crew resilience can be substantiated by raising the level of competence and by achieving the appropriate level of confidence (trust)”  

But how does this all link to mental health and wellbeing? 

It’s equally as important to build our personal resilience to ensure that we always protect and develop our own wellbeing. Here, self-awareness is key.  

We are in a constant state of flux, responding dynamically to changes that are sometimes out of our control. Being able to self-evaluate and assess how we are within our own personal wellbeing construct will allow us to develop effective strategies to build our personal resilience.  

Providing a framework of wellbeing and resilience behaviors, provides us with the tools to self-identify those behaviors that may require some attention, building resilience through incremental gains and adding up to a marked increase in performance. By addressing our personal resilience first, we can enhance our operational performance and, thus, safety.  

Next time you feel like you haven’t performed quite as effectively as you thought, perhaps ask ‘why’ and investigate a little deeper into your personal human factors to figure out what those root causes may be for next time.  

How resilient are you? 

Visit resilientpilot.com to learn more about how you can develop your personal resilience through its Resilience Development Programme. Whether you’re operational right now, or not, we owe it to ourselves to take care of our wellbeing and developing our resilience will go a long way towards achieving that. 

Sir Michael died in summer 2019. The COVID-19 pandemic meant a celebration of his life, organized by the Worshipful Company of Coachmakers to pay tribute to this extraordinary man, was finally able to take place in February. I was privileged to be there among much more distinguished guests, including Sir Michael’s widow, Lady Sybil, Marshall Company board members, and others connected to the Cambridge-based firm, who gathered at London’s Royal Aeronautical Society. Before dinner a lecture about Sir Michael’s life was delivered by Air Marshal Richard Knighton, the UK’s Deputy Chief of Defence Staff, who has long been connected to one of Britain’s most famous university cities.

The story of Marshall of Cambridge began in 1909 when David Marshall founded a chauffeur-drive business. He had been working as part of the kitchen staff at one of the University’s colleges before establishing a small garage, having spotted an opportunity in the nascent automotive industry. The company entered the aviation sector in 1929, after Arthur Marshall, David’s son, gained his pilot’s wings in 1927 and joined the family firm, following his studies for an engineering degree. On a whim, Arthur had acquired a Gipsy Moth airplane and it was spotted parked in a field by pioneering aviator Sir Alan Cobham, who just happened to be flying past overhead.

Cobham landed and went to find out who owned the Moth, encouraging the family to open an aerodrome near their home. By 1936, Marshall had acquired a large site, which today remains Cambridge Airport. During the Second World War, Marshall taught more than 20,000 RAF pilots to fly at Cambridge and other sites, as well as maintaining thousands of military aircraft. This continued post-war, and the company became a sub-contractor for all British-made aircraft when the industry was nationalized. Most significantly, it has been associated with the Lockheed Martin C-130 Hercules since 1966, famously creating air-to-air refueling modifications that enabled the transporter to fly long distances during the Falklands Conflict in 1982.

Tellingly, the company motto is Felix Qui Laborat, or ‘happy is he who works’, and Marshall remains a leading supporter of apprenticeship schemes, having trained engineers since 1921. Some employees go on to notch up 40 or even 50-year careers there. Current chairman Alex Dorrian told me that he’d even signed a certificate for one man who had notched up 60 years at the business in various guises, marking the occasion before finally hanging up his overalls.

What can engender such longevity in employment? Those at February’s tribute dinner who knew Sir Michael described his passion for aviation and aerospace. Born in 1932, he was commissioned as an RAF pilot during National Service between 1950 and 1952 and remained a keen private pilot throughout his life. He also spent much time and energy supporting youth initiatives. Marshall has long run a highly competitive apprenticeship scheme, regarded as one of the finest. It also has had a strong ethos of training, staff retention and of corporate social responsibility long before the current vogue for ESG investing (Environment, Social value and Governance).

In one citation for an award he received, Sir Michael was referred to as “a dynamic force for good” in both the business and social life of the city of Cambridge. The warmth expressed for him at the tribute dinner was much in evidence. He continues to be missed.

For this flight test, I’m turning right at the door instead of clambering into the cockpit. But unlike an airliner, turning right in this Praetor 600 jet made by Embraer provides an altogether superior experience. On the day of the test, G-FHFX had yet to fly any commercial passengers so there was genuine excitement among the crew and my fellow flyers.

The 600 is an impressive looking beast sitting within the super-midsize business jet category. The sleek lines and sparkling exterior reflect its factory freshness. But I was keen to get inside to sample what the marketeers describe as ‘a perfect union of performance, comfort and technology’ which you’d previously have found only on much larger aircraft from the likes of Gulfstream.

It’s immediately clear that, with just one or two people on board, this would be a very luxurious experience indeed, providing the same level of comfort you’d enjoy in airline First Class. For the test flight there was a handful more of us – the aircraft can seat 12 but standard capacity is for eight – but the cabin still felt extremely spacious, whether you’re working or indulging in the fine-dining services. Operator Flexjet had arranged a superb menu from celebrity chef Tom Kerridge, with a bevy of delicious light bites followed by a superb slow-cooked glazed short rib and some tasty desserts.

Statistically speaking 

Flicking through the vital statistics, we learned that the aircraft’s range can easily take you from London to New York or Sao Paulo to Miami; it is capable of 4,018 nautical miles in a single hop and long-range cruise speed. Best of all, it can fly this maximum range from a 4,436 feet runway and can operate from surfaces as short as 3,000 feet, giving the flyer access to more destinations and smaller airports closer to the ultimate destination.

Traditionally, to travel across the Atlantic on a private jet you needed to move up a category into a larger cabin aircraft. Price-wise, this level of luxury would have come at almost twice the price and yet the Praetor 600 comes with the latest technology and cabin interior. Viasat Ka-band Wifi connectivity comes as standard, which is essential for conducting business, not to mention streaming your favorite movie as if you were at home.

So, a key selling point for Embraer is providing a lot of aircraft and value for the money; for $23 million you get the same capacity and technology you’d find on a more expensive larger aircraft, including fly-by-wire flight controls. 

The low cabin pressure means you are less likely to arrive feeling jet-lagged. And the HEPA filter onboard provides passengers with a level of comfort which makes it suitable for longer flights than others of its size. It circulates the air every six minutes. Cruising at 45,000 feet the cabin altitude is just 5,000 feet. And the pair of powerful Honeywell HTF7500E turbofans give a massive kick in the backside as the jet accelerates for takeoff.

So, who are Embraer and Flexjet aiming at with the Praetor 600?

Flexjet’s managing director Marine Eugène explains that a large section of the population can now afford private aviation. 

“There is tremendous potential, but private aviation is not as mature yet as in America,” says Eugène. “There is a perception in Europe that it may be something exclusive. The pandemic has started to change that.”

COVID-19 has been a big driver for the private jet traveler, encouraging those who can afford it to avoid large public airports in favor of quieter Fixed Base Operators. But it’s not just about the premium end of the market. Flying private is now around 20% ahead of where it was pre-pandemic and many operators, particularly in the US, are seeing surging enquiries via their web platforms from new flyers.

For people dipping a toe in the market, going on a Gulfstream was a big step up. So, smaller aircraft like the 600 feel more accessible in the circumstances and could well be the gateway to further private jet travel in the future.

One noticeable trend has been in so-called ‘revenge travel’ with people jetting away to make up for time lost due to COVID. Eugène says: “People want to get out and do all the things they have not been able to do in the past two years, whether for leisure or business. They also want the flexibility.”

Green Aviation

With the spotlight on climate change and aviation’s part in it, decarbonisation of aviation is a hot topic. Although the industry only accounts for 2-3% of emissions at present, that percentage will grow as other sectors decarbonise faster.

“It should not be a debate,” Eugène says. “Carbon offsetting should be priced in. Our offset is 300% across all our flights. We are keen to highlight to customers that we have brand-new aircraft and this means emissions are lower thanks to the newer technology”’

Looking ahead, sustainable fuels (SAF) and eventually electric propulsion are developments that the industry is betting will help make real inroads into its environmental footprint. Availability of SAF is key in the short term. Operators are pushing for more to be produced and made available at more airports. Customers currently have the option to ask for SAF to be used on their flights. It is more expensive but, as more adopt the technology, the price will come down.

Like many operators, Flexjet offers customers the ability to personally offset and tailor an extra level of commitment as they see fit. The company is optimistic that aviation can reinvent itself again for a new era of a more environmentally conscious world facing climate change.

“The world’s high net worths need to travel and they want to do it as efficiently as possible. There is no way aviation is going away,” says Eugène. “The level of interdependence between the world is too strong. So, greener solutions will come.

Notably, the current forecasts by the International Air Transport Association (IATA) indicate that the airlines may continue to report net losses in 2022. However, these expected losses will narrow by a significant margin from the $51.8 billion figure reported in the last quarter of FY2021 to $11.6 billion in 2022. Current projections indicate that the industry may experience a boom starting June 2022, given the continued growth in world trade and increasing demand for passenger air travel.

IATA predicts an increase in passenger traffic to 61% of the pre-COVID levels in 2022. Numerically, this implies that the air travel tally could increase to reach a record high of 3.4 billion in 2022. This will have an antithetical effect on air passenger capacity, given that over 1,000 aircraft previously in service before the pandemic may end up in the boneyards after retiring. Adding to this predicament, over 15% of aircraft on ground (AOG) scheduled for maintenance may take a little longer before getting off the ground and resuming service. The shortage in passenger capacity may push the demand for damp leasing between airlines to boost extra-seasonal fleet capacity.

Inspite all airlines following a modest recovery strategy, a global pilot shortage problem will likely emerge, at least in some regions in 2022 or early into 2023. The expected pilot strike in August may aggravate the situation further as the growing demand for passenger flights will force trade unions to go back to their pre-pandemic conditions. Regarding the magnitude, the industry estimates a global pilot shortage of about 34,000 pilots between 2022 and 2025.

The present state of affairs signals that most airlines operating in low-cost domestic market segments may report faster recovery. The move by Indigo Partners – Wizz Air’s main shareholder to purchase up to 195 new A321 neo and A321 XLR aircraft indicates how low-cost carriers may become the next game-changers in the foreseeable future. Likewise, Ryanair is in the final stages of purchasing 75 new Boeing 737 MAX 200s, which will enable the company to capitalize on the growing customer base in the low-cost domestic market.

The emergence of new, ultra-low-cost airlines in countries like India could play a considerable role in strengthening the country’s aviation industry in 2022. The decision by Akasa Air to order 72 new Boeing 737 MAX could potentially change the already distressed Indian aviation segment. These aircraft will supplement the growing air travel demand for low-cost carriers (LCCs), accounting for over 80% of the aviation market share in India.

Compared to international air travel, the aviation industry may begin to note a new trend towards increased demand for domestic air travel, mainly among leisure travelers. Current projections indicate that the demand for domestic air travel will increase to 93% vis-à-vis pre-pandemic levels. This new record represents a 20% increase in domestic demand among air travelers this year.

Additionally, the IATA expects passenger demand for international air travel to double in 2022 to reach a new high of 44% of pre-pandemic levels. However, this is contingent on the level of vaccination penetration, new COVID-19 variant headwinds, and easing or intensification of restrictions by governments in the aviation sectors.

A report by the Airport Survey Network has revealed that more than 71% of airports have a long waiting list of aircraft scheduled for MRO services in their hangers. This will mean more business for private hangers even in summer, usually considered as the low season for the aviation industry.

If the status quo remains, the air cargo market will experience no relief throughout 2022 and beyond. The freight forwarders have warned that the industry is set to experience an increased demand for air cargo services, which may push airfreight rates higher in 2022. FedEx, Kuhne & Nagel, and other freight forwarders predict a constrained air cargo capacity and slowed capacity recovery, meaning that airlines may take up to 2-3 years to return to “favorable” pricing.

Although the situation is still acrimonious, airline companies are more likely to report continuous improvements in 2022 and the coming years. Many airlines have started to put their affairs to order by addressing the pervasive debt problems and hastening their deleveraging plans. The anticipated phenomenon is that smaller airlines will become thriftier as they try to reduce their capital expenditures in 2022. If global airlines can implement measures to circumvent the stalemate implicated by the new COVID-19 iterations, the odds for plunging to liquidity issues will remain significantly low. However, investors must become cognizant that a successful journey for recovery will entail multi-year efforts that may go beyond 2022 and involve a plenitude of financial volatility in the airline sector.

Of course, there are individuals who have made their way into aviation because they’re lucky enough to have wealthy parents who met their training costs. Equally, I’ve met many pilots who have had to work very hard to raise the money themselves. I won’t forget the flying instructor during my early PPL training who drove a taxi during his hours away from the airfield to make ends meet while he built up his cockpit hours. Visit any private flying club and it’s immediately obvious that some pilots are more than happy to make personal sacrifices in other areas of their lives to dedicate their resources to their hobby.

But what of those keen individuals who see no way to take the first steps due to the financial requirements? How do we convince them that aviation is still worth exploring?

Despite circling back to flying later in life myself, I’ve long been a proponent of scholarships as a route into the industry for motivated young people. Several friends, contacts and colleagues over the years have told me that scholarships were transformative – changing their lives by opening up the world of aviation when they would not otherwise have made it.

In the UK alone, among the schemes on offer there are opportunities from the Honourable Company of Air Pilots, the Air League, the Royal Aeronautical Society, the British Gliding Association and the Light Aircraft Association.

In essence, there really is free flying on offer and it is widely available provided you meet the entry criteria and impress the teams who award the scholarships. A good rule of thumb is being able to demonstrate a genuine and serious ambition and ability to pursue an aviation-related career. Don’t forget that the military still recruits and trains many pilots and other aircrew roles each year. If you’re successful, your training will be at the taxpayers’ expense, although you are committing to fulfilling a minimum period of public service in exchange for the flying.

What’s more, there are large sums of money allocated to scholarships. In the past decade, the Air League has awarded scholarships worth more than £2 million, and it and hands out more than 100 opportunities every year. It merely seeks individuals who ‘have a passion for aviation and aerospace and the determination to succeed’.

And there are several bodies that go above and beyond with their entry requirements to ensure that a diverse pool of potential aviators can access free training opportunities. Two stellar examples are disabled flying charity Aerobility and the British Women Pilots’ Association. The latter plays an important role and focuses on boosting female participation. Other awards concentrate on gliding – still regarded as an excellent and cost-effective way to get into aviation – and Flight Instructor ratings for those who want to pass on their love of flying to others or who simply enjoy the idea of teaching.

It is important to push this message of flying training being open and available to everyone as we seek to rebuild an industry that’s been battered by the global pandemic. We also need people who are going to play key roles in the future decarbonisation of aviation. Learning to fly is one way of solidifying a passion – which inevitably fades – into a real and lasting purpose.

Too many people who are curious about flying are being turned away by the mere thought of the potential costs involved. Imagine if more of them realized that they could be assisted on their journeys with access to a large and growing pool of funding. 

So, if there are young people in your network who you think might benefit or need encouragement, let them know about the opportunities out there. Someone has to be awarded one of these many scholarships. It may as well be them.

White Waltham, situated to the west of London, England, is a giant grass airfield with various runway directions and plenty of nearby unrestricted airspace, making it ideal for training. It also has true heritage, having been home to both de Havilland and Fairy aircraft companies in the past. Where better to become reacquainted with the Harvard?

My second encounter with the aircraft came last summer. Harvard FE511 is a beautiful example owned by James Brown, who also owns a Battle of Britain veteran Hawker Hurricane R4118. She was built in December 1942 in Quebec and served with the Royal Canadian Air Force in Ontario for the duration of the war, mainly to train pilots for the Royal Air Force, and finally arrived in the UK in 2016. 

The Harvard was larger and more intimidating than I remembered. Just walking up to it gives an impression of scale compared with the Chipmunk, my usual mount. This is a massive old beast! At the front is a thirsty nine-cylinder Pratt & Whitney R-1340-AN1 Wasp radial engine. The Harvard is also quite complex in terms of systems with a retractable undercarriage and variable pitch propeller, plenty to manage compared with most light GA aircraft

Even climbing aboard is an adventure! The aircraft is 3.5m high, making it quite an ascent up to the cockpit. Once inside, it is surprisingly comfy. That large radial engine means the fuselage is also wide, so the cockpit is fairly spacious once you’re settled into the bucket seat and are sitting on your parachute pack. A lanyard is fixed to the seat, so if you are forced to bail out, your chute will automatically pull out behind you as you exit the aircraft.

A bit like sitting in an SUV, you feel high up off the ground with a decent view and plenty of interesting dials scattered all over the place, including some unfamiliar ones like Cylinder Head Temperature and a big old clock, which I wound up to time the flight. There is manifold pressure, a constant speed propeller and RPM to manage. There’s also no floor to speak of and you can see the control rods and cables below your flying boots.

Looking straight ahead, however, the view is not so good with the aircraft’s nose blocking sight of the ahead on the ground. This means it’s essential to weave side-to-side when taxiing to ensure you’re not going to bump into anything.

My instructor for the day was fellow Chipmunk pilot Peter Tuplin, who has more than 600 hours in Harvards as well having flown other warbirds. Sitting in the front cockpit for this first flight, Peter managed the navigation and radios, freeing me to make the most of just flying the thing and getting a feel for the machine from the rear seat.

Although heavy at around two tons, once you have your hands on the throttle and stick only tiny movements are required. Flying the Harvard is about fingers and thumbs and, most importantly, toes. It’s akin to thinking about where you want to go, applying a little back pressure on the stick when turning to keep the nose up and hold altitude. The same goes for the rudder pedals; it feels more like toe pressure than huge extensions of your leg. Too much and you’ll have the airplane skidding around the sky.

On departure from White Waltham, Peter performed a flawless takeoff. You get a sense of that power as the radial roars, and the aircraft accelerated faster than I was expecting. Climbing out of RW21 with a left-hand circuit, Peter handed control to me as we passed 1,000ft to keep the climb going and set the appropriate power as we turned towards the west and away from London Heathrow’s TMA.

We ascended to 2,000ft initially, then rose to 2,500ft outside controlled airspace to prepare for some general handling. Starting with some gentle turns to get a feel for the aircraft, I was working hard not to lose or gain too much height and grow accustomed to the pressures needed to guide this mighty machine in various directions through 90 degrees, 180 degrees and, finally, full 360 degree turns each way.

Next, climbing up to 3,500 feet, we tried some steeper turns with 45 degrees of bank, keeping them coordinated with sufficient back pressure on the stick to maintain altitude. The Harvard is quite heavy in pitch and so very easy to over-control, leaving you suddenly climbing or descending when you don’t want to.

I asked Peter to demonstrate a wingover. You can climb fairly quickly at 1,200ft/min thanks to that powerful engine, just making sure the propeller doesn’t overspeed as you go over the top and head downhill again. A very nice feeling. You’re flying a business-like military airplane.

The noise of the airflow was also very pronounced, particularly as the aircraft is flying around at about 180-200mph, with a maximum speed of 226mph – nearly twice my Chipmunk’s cruising speed. Going downhill, speed builds quickly, as does the noise!

After a short while, though, I was feeling comfortable and confident, with a sense that even after just 20 minutes in the Harvard I would get the most out of an upcoming Spitfire sortie (a story for another day). You get that sense of power from the aircraft but the key learnings for me were the lack of visibility on the ground, using the rudder properly when flying to maintain coordinated flight, and always making sure you are trimmed properly – it really does make life easier.

It’s an exciting machine to fly and I can’t wait to get back in the cockpit for the next trip. As I was warned beforehand it is very addictive. It’s just brilliant fun, until it’s time to pay the bill at £500 for 30 minutes for experience flights.

While we heard in the panel discussions how COVID-19 continues to cause severe challenges for the sector, I had the chance to join some more optimistic conversations on the future outlook, particularly over a chat on sustainability with Neville Hargreaves, VP for Waste to Fuels with the sustainable fuels technology company, Velocys. 

The UK-based company has made headlines over the past few months after signing agreements with a number of major airlines and it’s also gained publicity over its plans for the first sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) plant in the UK. I wanted to ask Neville more about the business, what role he thinks SAF will play in aviation’s decarbonization journey, and how optimistic he is about future progress.

Neville Hargreaves, VP for Waste to Fuels at Velocys

So, Neville, tell us about Velocys, what does it do and what is your role in the business?

We’re a sustainable fuels technology company that sprang out of two parallel developments – one from Oxford University and one in chemical reactor design from the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory in the US. We began to focus around that time on the conversion of hydrocarbons and we’re now developing projects of our own to show that complete conversion from solid feedstocks to finished fuels actually works.

And tell us about you, what made you want to get involved in the industry?

Well, I’ve got an energy industry background. I’m a PhD chemist and worked for Exxon…then I guess I ‘got the clean energy bug’ about 15 years ago. I joined Velocys because I wanted to help transform energy use. 

So, to focus on SAF, what role do you see this technology playing in the industry’s decarbonization journey?

There’s pretty much a complete consensus that more than half the job of decarbonizing is going to be down to SAF. Other propulsion technologies don’t really serve long-haul and it’s going to take them a long time to be in the market, whereas SAF is a drop-in fuel that can be used immediately. 

We’ve got to achieve a lot of decarbonization in the next few years otherwise we’re not going to get to net zero by 2050.

It really is the combination of these two pressures – the need for action now and the fact that 70%+ CO2 comes from medium and long-haul flights – that makes SAF absolutely critical.

SAF has been challenged by some critics about how sustainable it actually is, for example talking about the use of different feedstocks with crops and associated biodiversity issues. How would you respond to those challenges?

I think it’s the responsibility of all those who produce SAF to show that their feedstock is sustainable

That’s why we have things like the Roundtable for Sustainable Biomaterials which assess the supply chain and confirm your approach meets those ambitions. 

It’s worth reflecting on the three generations of SAF that we see coming through:

I) Oil, either vegetable or used cooking oil – that’s the cheapest way of making SAF but also with the biggest feedstock limitation and the biggest risk of cannibalising feedstocks going into road transport, so I think that’s a significant issue. It doesn’t mean we shouldn’t do it, but we need the other generations as well.

II) Any solid carbon feedstock ꟷ so municipal solid waste is what my project focuses on but also forestry waste and, yes, crops do play a part. There’s much bigger potential in the volume than vegetable oils but it’s a bigger capital requirement. 

III) Using carbon from the atmosphere – that has no immediate carbon feedstock problem but it does mean you need a very big supply of renewable energy and it’s also very expensive. We shouldn’t think of that as the easy answer.

It’s all three of these generations that are going to be necessary.

Which project are you most excited about?

We at Velocys have these two reference projects. One is in the US, using forestry wastes. To your point on sustainability, this is not cutting down trees, this is using the parts you don’t use for timber. And this is very exciting. Just a couple of weeks ago we signed agreements to sell the SAF from that project to IAG and Southwest Airlines (LUV). 

I’m also very excited about my project in the UK. Here, we’re intending to take municipal solid waste and commercial and industrial waste which would otherwise go to landfill or incineration and convert that into SAF. Everyone sees why that’s a great thing, you’ve got this horrible waste that you’ve got to get rid of and we turn it into something desperately needed.

What kind of examples of waste are we talking about? Is it old coffee cups?

It’s pretty much everything containing carbon. Think about what’s in your bin, it’s packaging, textiles, food, cardboard, there’s a whole range of carbon-containing material. We will take that black bag as it is, with whatever is in it, separate out the bits you can’t use and what needs to be recycled – metals, glass, stones. And then we essentially heat it all up in a controlled atmosphere, it releases the carbon and the hydrogen and we then use Velocys’ technology to convert it into fuels.

That’s incredibly exciting!

If you were going to have one specific ask of the UK Government to support upscaling, what would it be?

You’ve got to think back to how did the offshore wind industry get established in the UK? What really made that take off was Contracts for Difference. What that means is that government guarantees a certain price to produce that product and that contract is the basis for investment, or the basis on which investors will lend money to producers in order to build a plant. I think that’s exactly what we need in the fuels industry in the UK as well.

At COP26, we saw a commitment from the international aviation climate coalition pledging to net zero by 2050. Are you optimistic about that target?

Yes, I am. I think the ICAO assembly in 2022 will be a critical step for the whole industry and the fact that we’re talking about it a year in advance (you heard that on the panel this morning) means there’s a lot of work recognising how critical that agreement is. It’s no longer in dispute that we have to do this and achieve that common goal across countries because aviation is an international business. It’s not fair or realistic to expect one airline or country to do all of the work itself. 

Reflecting on some comments earlier from a panel in the conference, it was suggested that there’s a potential gap in how consumers engage with industry’s story on sustainability. Do you think there’s more work to do in that area?

I do. This is not awfully easy. We’re still burning carbon fuel in the aircraft, but it’s all about the source of the carbon and also because we can do carbon capture and storage in parallel, it’s not that easy to communicate that story. I and others have much to learn about how we can tell that story effectively.

I suppose it’s not quite as easy a story compared to the road transport transition, is it? I mean, people know what fuel they’re putting in their car or if they’re driving electric.

Actually, the same is true in road transport, I was talking to a friend the other day about how does E10 help the environment? There’s a lot of talk about EVs (I own one myself), but the biggest decarbonization in the road industry so far is achieved through fuels – ethanol, biodiesel. They don’t look as different as an electric solution but they are as important.

I think you might be right. I’m not sure many consumers will know what E10 is. So, final question, will we get to fly on a SAF plane by next Christmas?

You could certainly fly with up to 50% SAF. 100% SAF has been done already but that is not approved for commercial flight yet. But I’m sure if you go speak to Rolls Royce or Airbus they can get you on a flight!

I’ll hold you to it. Thanks very much for your time, Neville.

It was simple, he told me: “In 1969, Neil Armstrong stepped foot on the surface of the moon, Concorde took its first flight and I saw a Harrier Jump Jet display at Farnborough Air Show. What else would I have chosen after that?”

Image: Gary Lakin

That simple story has stayed with me ever since and I recite it when anyone questions whether children can be inspired by attending such events. My own aviation awakening came in three phases. My earliest memory of an aircraft was seeing Concorde (there she is again) soaring over London as I walked in Hyde Park with my grandparents. I was only about four or five-years-old.

Next, I went to Duxford on a birthday trip with a school friend. Together we watched a Spitfire dance in the skies above that historic airfield. It transported us back to 1940 and the Royal Air Force’s Finest Hour. I was determined to be a fighter pilot from that moment on (the RAF had other ideas).

The first time I took the controls of an aircraft myself I felt instantly at home and have flown pretty much ever since, infrequently to start with before training for a private license and more regularly as the co-owner of various light aircraft for the past decade. Becoming ‘hands on’ in aviation has changed my life for the better, opened doors I never thought I’d see behind, and granted me access to a global collective of like-minded individuals who instantly recognize a fellow aviation nut.

Image: Gary Lakin

Today, I’m also lucky enough to work for a large and growing UK aviation company that operates across a spectrum of activities – occasionally I get to fly in our aircraft. Everyone I meet there is equally passionate about the magic of flight. Many take the time to welcome visitors into our world, speak to school or college children, and engage with members of the public at airshows or other events.

A few summers ago, long before COVID devastated the sector, I was strolling back to my shared de Havilland Chipmunk parked up on the grass near the café at my home airfield. Leaning on the fence, looking at the 70-year-old machine on the other side, were three quite young boys. It was clear they were pretty excited to be so close to an aeroplane, one that all too soon was going to start up and fly away again, out of their lives.

Remembering one kind airshow pilot who took the time to show me around his plane when I was a similar age, I turned back to the kids. Beckoning over two ladies who were the trio’s mothers, I asked if all five would like to come through the gate to take a closer look at the Chipmunk. They simply couldn’t believe they were allowed to visit ‘airside’ and, what’s more, that they would be able to sit inside this vintage machine.

Image: Gary Lakin

The smiles on their faces were priceless as they took hold of the controls, made the obligatory engine noises and no doubt imagined themselves soaring through the clouds. Their mums were also joyful to witness this transformation in their excitable children.

For me it was a small gesture, a few minutes out of the flying day and a chance to talk about the airplane I love. But as we prepared to part, one of the mothers explained that their families had spent all summer throwing money at activities in the hope the boys would be entertained for a short while during the long holidays. Nothing seemed to resonate. Until they saw this aeroplane. One of the kids declared it the best thing he’d done all summer. I found this hugely encouraging.

So, ever since I’ve tried to make sure I offer others the chance to get up close to this aircraft. If even one single person picks up the bug from me and develops a similar passion for aviation, I’d consider it hugely worthwhile. And if they don’t, maybe just dispelling some of the perception of elitism around private aviation makes it a worthwhile thing to do in its own right.

There are myriad ways that those of us in aviation can open our world to those outside, welcome in people – particularly youngsters – who could provide the lifeblood to sustain the sector in the years ahead. By its very nature, aviation has always blazed a trail, pushed the envelope (as Tom Wolfe described it in The Right Stuff) and driven futuristic developments at a pace many industries struggle to match.

Image: Gary Lakin

As pilots or aviation professionals, we have an obligation to use our enthusiasm for flight for the greater good and take every opportunity to extol its virtues. There are those who would see us grounded for good. But we know the power to change lives that the promise of flight provides. The industry has modernized before – think back to the dawn of the jet age. And now it must modernize again for the health of the planet. But to keep moving forward we need to lure new generations of enthusiasts who together will go on to change our world for the better.

Set within the tranquil, picturesque mountains of the Snowdonia National Park, the Mach Loop is a winding circle of dramatic valleys between the rural towns of Dolgellau, Machynlleth and Mallwyd in the southern end of the park. This makes for one of the most awesome viewing areas for low-level, tactical military flying.  

The UK is divided into 20 Low Flying Areas (LFA), with three containing dedicated Tactical Training Areas (TTA). The Mach Loop falls into LFA 7 (TTA), where military aircraft routinely conduct essential training down to 250ft and occasionally as low as 100ft.  

Visitors to the loop can expect a moderate hike up the mountainsides to well-known viewing spots – namely ‘Cad’ (East and West) ‘Bwlch’ and ‘Bluebell’ – where anything from RAF Hawks and Hercules C-130J to USAF F15 and V-22 Osprey aircraft fly through the valley, allowing the opportunity for a rare, bird’s-eye view. 

Avgeeks and military enthusiasts travel from far and wide, patiently waiting in the hope of securing a front row seat to see these incredible aircraft. Seemingly tiny at first, swooping around a distant corner against the mountainous backdrop, their impressive scale fast becomes clear before effortlessly banking near 90 degrees to pass through the valley, then they’re off into the distance before turning the next corner. Blink and you will miss it.  

The loop has gained a serious following in recent years thanks to social media, and it’s easy to see why it is such a popular attraction, even for those less obsessed with aviation. The whole experience and comprehension of the skill involved at such great speeds is truly awe-inspiring, all the while among the spectacular scenery that Wales has to offer.  

Recent sightings: Hawk-T2, Texan-T1, Hercules (C-130J), Atlas (A400m), F15, Osprey, Chinook 

Tips for plane spotting in the Mach Loop 

• Patience, patience, patience! Military flying in this area is anything but guaranteed, so take a blanket, some snacks and plenty of layers. 

• The Loop goes anti-clockwise – if in doubt follow everyone else’s camera lenses. 

• Bring your umbrella, it’s Wales! 

• Finally, just take it all in. Photos are great but sometimes simply watching these military birds maneuver majestically through the steep narrow valleys is the most priceless moment to take away with you.  

There’s an irony in the title of this article. In this month’s conversation about mental health, we are encouraging more mindful listening.

In around 60 AD, Epictetus, the Greek philosopher, said: “We have two ears and one mouth so that we can listen twice as much as we talk.” However, today many of us forget that we possess one of the most powerful and effective tools to help someone experiencing a mental health crisis: listening.

How often do you listen to someone? I mean, really listen? 

Listening is one of the most important aspects of effective communication. In aviation, and in particular in CRM/TEM/NOTECHS frameworks, we advocate active listening: nodding encouragingly, paraphrasing, taking notes etc. But if someone has reached out to you for mental health support, or if you’re concerned for someone’s wellbeing, try to go one step further by employing empathetic listening. All that many people experiencing distressing emotions and thoughts want is someone to talk to who will truly listen: an empathetic listener.

Our focus at Resilient Pilot is on our mentees’ agenda, not their mentor’s. Our volunteer mentors are encouraged to spend more time listening than talking when they are working with a mentee. Their approach is to listen and then signpost a mentee towards a resource that, between them, the two parties have identified may be of help. This cannot be achieved if we don’t properly understand what the mentee really needs. Empathic listening helps us work towards that deeper level of understanding.

But first, let’s define ‘empathy’ – all too often confused with ‘sympathy’. However,
empathy, unlike sympathy, does not necessarily mean we agree with the other person or see things from the same point of view. 

Instead, it requires us to imagine what it feels like to be the person in front of us. I can think of no better person to help us understand empathy than researcher and author, Brené Brown: “Empathy has no script. There is no right way or wrong way to do it. It’s simply listening, holding space, withholding judgment, emotionally connecting, and communicating that incredibly healing message of ‘you’re not alone’.”

It’s also worth watching her short, animated video which nails it in a simple snapshot here. You’ll never say ‘I know what you mean/how you feel’ again, unless of course you really can walk in their shoes. Even then, how do you know you really can? Don’t risk it, stick to listening.

An active listener may pass judgement and engage in debate, but an empathetic listener should remain non-judgmental. Empathic listening is a technique of listening and questioning in a structured way which enables you to gain a deeper intellectual and emotional understanding. It takes active listening techniques that all important ‘one step further’ in order to better support colleagues, friends and family members.

Listening is naturally tricky

Humans speak at a rate of 125-150 wpm but our brain can comprehend and listen at 600 wpm, so our mind is underutilised and we struggle to keep our minds on topic. We hear one or two phrases and inadvertently create separate conversations. So, the first step to empathetic listening is to focus on keeping your mouth shut! Don’t be too keen to interject and debate or relate to what they are saying. Imagine your lips really are sealed. 

Also, take notes during the conversation to ensure you don’t forget your thoughts. Remember to breathe and consciously pay attention. But allow time for them to talk (remember: two ears, one mouth). I have Post-its around my computer screen reminding me to LISTEN. PAUSE. THINK. They have really helped.

When someone is struggling mentally, they don’t want to hear how you dealt with something similar. They need you to hear what they are feeling and experiencing. They need space to talk. And they need to be listened to.

‘Let silence do the heavy lifting’

One of our volunteer team, Sam (who is an experienced coach), lives by this great phrase: ‘let silence do the heavy lifting’. Think about that statement – it puts all the emphasis on staying silent. 

Sometimes all someone wants is to be listened to and, as long as they trust you, they will keep talking, but you need to allow space for that. It may be that they are simply trying to phrase what they want to say next, so a few moments of silence can allow that space to think and expand.  

Of course, there are moments when you do need to speak. It’s important to keep the speaker from being defensive, and asking direct questions can come across as challenging. So, when the time comes for you to speak, think of that widely-used question answering technique, ‘reflect and deflect’, but focus on the ‘reflect’. Repeat their words back to them, but avoid asking direct questions. If the speaker says ‘I am unsure of what to do’ then all you need to do is repeat that back: ‘you are unsure of what to do’. It is very likely that this will encourage them to expand and open up further. 

If the speaker asks for your input, you need to show respect for their trust in you by being honest. Do bear in mind, though, to phrase your response carefully to avoid knocking their confidence and inhibiting them from continuing to share. 

But just as in active listening, it is important to look out for the non-verbal cues, too. What is the speaker not saying? It could be equally important as what they are saying, if not more so. Non-verbal signs like repeated deep breaths, sighing, fidgeting, looking away, covering their mouth, staring ahead or blinking a lot are tell-tale signs that there may be more they want to say or are holding back from saying. 

Summary

• Be supportive, kind and caring.
• Listen carefully and without judgment. Input only occasionally to show that you’ve heard and understood. 
• Be a mirror: reflect back by repeating key phrases to encourage expansion.
• Look out for non-verbal cues; what’s not being said. 
• Demonstrate that you respect their trust and confidence in you.
• Let the silence do the heavy lifting

As a child growing up in the early 00s, my obsession for planes came before the age of easy access to YouTube and other social media platforms. For me, the only way to regularly see planes in action was a day out at the local airport.

Luckily, this happened to be Manchester, a bustling international affair which always had plenty to write home about. Although it has since grown beyond recognition, it’s still an amazing place to while away the hours. Another big plus is seeing the legendary icon of flight, Concorde, as this supersonic aircraft lies almost state-like in the adjacent Ringway Museum.

For modern aircraft in service today, watching their take-offs and landings and hearing their almighty roars is awesome. It’s also knowing that excited passengers are heading out on adventures that will make lasting memories for years to come.

Nowadays, new technology has made spotting much more fun. Just watching a plane fly overhead and attempting to work out the airline and type, before proceeding to check on radar, is a hobby in itself. And, if you can’t make it in person, you can live-stream various airport arrivals and departures from the comfort of your own home. Then there’s the numerous forums and groups, all dedicated to sharing media and tips for aircraft movements across the globe.

Perhaps one of the most awe-inspiring places to spot, and somewhere high on my travel bucket list, is the threshold of runway 10 at Princess Juliana Intl’ Airport on the Caribbean Island of St. Maarten. If you are lucky enough to visit, you can get seriously close to aircraft flying right over the spectacular Maho beach just moments before touchdown.

Alternatively, larger aircraft departures provide incredible jet-blast opportunities all from the comfort of a sun lounger. Unfortunately, the Boeing 747 is no longer a scheduled visitor to the airport, but you can still catch A330s and B757s along with other smaller aircraft.

One of my favorite spotting moments is the RAF Hercules C130J. I’ve lost count of the number of times that my radar app has pinged, alerting me of its presence in the North Wales area. I promptly abandon whatever it is I’m doing and, with adrenaline pumping, I head off to the banks of the Conwy River in the hope that it flies overhead.

On sporadic occasions, the quad engine military aircraft snakes low level through the Conwy Valley, popping out in the Conwy Estuary as low as 100 feet against the spectacularly scenic backdrop of the 13th century Conwy Castle and surrounding mountains. The sheer roar of the propeller driven engines never fails to turn heads.

I’m fortunate to have a wide range of options when it comes to my plane spotting, all within a one-hour drive from my home in North Wales. Among the regular locations are The Machloop, RAF Valley and Caernarfon Airport, as well as Manchester Airport and not forgetting Hawarden Airport for the Airbus Beluga.

And what is something I really want to see? Most definitely the Antonov AN-225.

It is the longest-lived of any US-made aircraft, having taken its maiden flight in 1945 and has been in continuous production ever since. To date, more than 18,000 have been delivered to customers around the world.

The original Bonanza emerged after World War II when aircraft manufacturers were looking to tap into the adventurous spirit of soldiers, sailors and airmen coming back to the United States from fighting overseas, as well as the civilian flyers deprived of their wings during the conflict. Period adverts supporting the launch of the aircraft refer to the tremendous savings in man hours, manpower and money for companies that chose to purchase the Bonanza, the first ‘thoroughly economical plane for business’.

I initially imagined a retro cockpit, very few mod-cons and perhaps some fabric-covered wings thrown into the bargain. But while the Bonanza is a design almost eight decades old, the modern incarnation of this machine is the epitome of cutting-edge private aviation.

From the outset, the aircraft was designed with the pilot in mind. While the basic all-metal Bonanza airframe looks the same today as it did in the 1940s, it has come a long way from the initial variant in terms of avionics, handling, comfort and range. Typical 21st century customers still tend to be entrepreneurs and executives, high net-worth individuals and those pilots who have stepped up from the standard single engine piston (SEP) training fleet such as the Cessna 172 Skyhawk via aircraft with increasing levels of performance and speed as well as more range and payload.

Like its stablemate the Beech Baron, the six-seat Bonanza features retractable landing gear as well as serious speed and engine power – our G36 test model boasted a Continental IO-550-B engine, kicking out 300 horsepower via a three-bladed aluminum Hartzell constant speed, variable pitch propeller. Most pilots won’t train in a Bonanza; it would be quite pricey and is too much of a plane for low hours aviators. But with the right experience it is a joy to fly and akin to a personal airliner. It is very comfortable and similar inside to a luxury car.

Let’s take a walk around

Cranfield Airport north of London was the venue for this test. Our Bonanza (registration N127BZ) sat proudly on the ramp outside the hangar just begging to go flying. It’s one of those aircraft that looks like it’s ready to take off even before you fire up the engine. The smart blue and grey stripes on the pristine white fuselage give the impression of speed – once airborne the Bonanza happily cruises at 176 knots (203mph) with the fear and flap raised, which far outstrips most general aviation puddle jumpers. Crucially, it also has a range of more than 800 miles, giving the Bonanza the ability to go pretty much anywhere in Europe from the United Kingdom.

One of the most impressive features from the outside is the giant double door to the passenger cabin. I don’t know of another SEP aircraft which has this, making for easy access to the interior. The seats can also be easily removed to enable a huge amount of cargo to be carried. Allied with the robust landing gear – which allows for landing on semi-prepared surfaces – and the Bonanza could justifiably be considered a rugged utility aircraft.

Climbing aboard and settling into the comfortable leather left-hand seat, though, it’s clear this is less of a pick-up truck and more akin to a luxury cruiser. The pilot’s instrument panel is uncluttered. As you’d expect for such a high-end aircraft, the avionics are the latest Garmin G1000 NXi with a 10-inch primary multi-function display, animated weather and a host of useful features such as the ability to restore your preloaded flight plan after a power failure. In addition, visual approaches are coupled to the autopilot and it has ADS-B in and out for enhanced traffic awareness and live weather updates. A cluster of stand-by instruments sits away to the right.

The audio panel also has some nice touches. It’s Bluetooth enabled so you can stream music to passengers from your smartphone. It has a nifty 3D audio function (so that sounds come into your headset from the direction in which they’re being emitted) and a recorder which will play back up to 60 seconds of radio transmissions – very useful if air traffic passes you a complex clearance and you want to double check what was said.

Firing up the aircraft it’s clear just how potent a powerplant the Continental is. The aircraft begins gently rocking on its undercarriage like a racehorse raring to go. Once lined up on Cranfield’s runway, it seemed I’d barely opened up the throttle and the machine was itching to lift off. We were soon soaring away on our departure heading. It certainly climbs well, at an impressive 1,230 feet per minute, and you can be airborne in just 920 feet of runway, making smaller airports with shorter surfaces accessible.

Once established in the cruise, the Bonanza has an autopilot with features that would be familiar to drivers of modern, high-end cars. Protective functions discourage the pilot from busting established attitude and airspeed parameters such as pitch, roll or speed minimums for various phases of flight. The aircraft won’t completely take control, but it certainly makes you aware and ‘nudges’ you so you’re fully conscious of what’s happening and can take corrective action if required. I tried overbanking in a left turn and the aircraft kept nudging the wings back towards level. Allow the speed to decay so you approach the stall, and the aircraft will let you know. Together, this helps the pilot feel that they’re flying a stable machine which will look after them, boosting confidence in all attitudes. It undoubtedly makes flying safer and reduces workload.

Handling characteristics are very precise, as I discovered while flying the aircraft back into Cranfield without using the autopilot, making a visual approach at the end of the sortie. Aileron and rudder are interconnected, helping you to keep your turns properly coordinated and in balance. As a novice on type, I’ll put my silky-smooth landing down to the ability of that chunky undercarriage to absorb any impact! After nearly an hour aloft putting this impressive machine through its paces it felt good to be contemplating a successful demo as we coasted to a stop outside the hangar and shut down.

With this current version of the Bonanza, the legacy of company founder Walter Beech remains in good shape some 70 years after his death. The aircraft is a delight to fly, has serious utility to take you places in comfort and style and I’m certain will continue to impress all those lucky enough to fly her for many years to come. For a decently kitted out new G36 you should expect to pay between $900,000 and $1m depending on optional extras such as satellite communications and Garmin synthetic vision.

AeroTime’s Alec Wignall before boarding the British Airways A380

On Monday morning, we saw Virgin Atlantic and British Airways perform parallel departures to JFK with its flagship A350s to mark the reopening of US transatlantic travel. This special moment of unity came after 18 months of border closures due to the devastating effects of the COVID-19 pandemic.

But Monday also marked another hugely significant aviation event, with the return of the British Airways A380 Superjumbo, the largest commercial aircraft in the world. This beast of the skies is currently flying short-haul routes from LHR to FRA and MAD for crew familiarization and training, ahead of its redeployment on select long-haul flights, including LA, Miami, and Dubai.

Fortunately, I was about to board one of its first flights and could not wait to take it all in. On a more personal note, this flight was a special day for me, marking my first commercial flight in over a year. It also brought back memories of my last flight on an Emirates A380 as I returned to the U.K after completing the penultimate stage of my flight training in New Zealand.

As I made my way through the busy Heathrow terminal and toward my aircraft, G-XLEF, I realized just how much I had missed this. Taking the escalator up to the gate and catching my first glimpse of the distinctive A380 was a truly magical moment. Other travelers around me had also stopped to admire the aircraft, taking photographs, and commenting on its gargantuan form, its size even more striking alongside two smaller company 777-200s.

As I arrived on board, the atmosphere was one of huge excitement, despite there only being an A320 payload (in the event of any last-minute aircraft switches).

The A380 delivers a certain magical feeling to flying. The entire cabin boasts a luxury and comfort that leaves passengers and crew in awe, whether it’s their first or 100th flight. For the two-hour journey, I booked seat 22K located on the main deck in the World Traveller cabin (a window seat, of course!) overlooking the enormous wing, which provided some serious condensation on takeoff.

As always with BA, the crew were spectacular. Their welcoming, bubbly personalities made everyone feel right at home. But the best part was still to come, when the crew took the time to show some of my fellow avgeeks and me the closed upper deck, which features BA’s Club World, World Traveller Plus and World Traveller products. Here, the crew, many of whom had not flown for the duration of the A380’s grounding, were familiarizing themselves with the aircraft and inflight services.

In perfect flying conditions, our flight path took us over the Channel Islands and the Bay of Biscay before commencing the descent into Madrid, where the cabin filled with the golden glow of the Spanish sunset. On arrival onto the stand, I had the fortune of heading up to the flight deck and meeting the captain of the flight, who, in his initial announcement to the passengers, perfectly summed up the experience when he said, “Welcome aboard the amazing Airbus A380”.

In total, there were five pilots on board. Two were flying, with a further two observing ahead of their own flight the following day, as well as a training captain to provide a sign-off.

It is remarkable how things have changed since my last flight in October 2020. Today, and largely owing to the success of COVID-19 vaccinations, we can be positively optimistic about the future of aviation. Once again, we can all enjoy the freedom and global connectivity brought to our lives by such an awesome industry, something that we have all missed for so long.

So, whether your next trip via the skies is to reunite with family and friends, seek some warm winter weather, or even jet off on that bucket list adventure, if you fly by A380, you certainly won’t be disappointed. 

In general, people are often willing to discuss physical health. If we sustain an injury, we are more likely to talk about it. But when it comes to difficult mental or emotional experiences,  it can be much harder to share.  So, why is that?

One of the common misconceptions when discussing mental health and wellbeing is that the act of talking might make the situation worse. Certainly, there are some things that you would be better off not saying. However, talking to someone who does not judge and genuinely wants to listen and help can have a positive impact.  As humans we are social beings, and one of our basic needs is for a sense of belonging and connection with others.  By talking about things that are concerning us, we can gain greater insight into an issue and move towards resolving it. 

Maslow’s Hierarchy of Need

So, it’s safe to talk about wellbeing and mental health. But how do we start?  

You could ask someone directly how they are feeling but, let’s be honest, how many times has someone asked how you are for you to reply “I’m fine”, even when you’ve got a lot on your mind and you are finding things a bit tough?

In some societies ‘how are you?’ or ‘alright?’ have become more of a greeting than an inquiry into someone’s current physical, emotional or mental state, and often we give a straightforward automatic response to that.  If someone gives you a stock “fine,” when you first ask, why not follow up with “everything’s fine?”.  This invites the person to check in with how they really feel and lets them know that you are genuinely interested. It also establishes an opportunity for the person to share anything they would like to.

Another option is to start the conversation with a bit of self-disclosure. It may be that you are finding things difficult and want to talk.  It’s worth checking in and asking yourself some questions. “How am I?”, “what emotions are around for me today?”, “is there anything on my mind?”

By starting with your internal dialogue and raising your own awareness, it can make it easier to be more open about how you’re doing. You may not want to dive straight in and say, “I’m struggling today” and that is understandable. But you could raise the topic by saying: “I read this article the other day and it got me thinking…”  This could be a gentler way to initiate a conversation with a trusted colleague, friend or relative.

Diversity, stigma and changing the conversation

Aviation is a truly international industry and having colleagues from a variety of cultures and backgrounds is something to be celebrated. It is also something that needs to be considered when approaching the topic of mental health and wellbeing. In some cultures, whether at a national, company, or even familial level, there can exist a pressure to keep worries, feelings or problems to yourself or to not discuss them outside of the cultural community.  It is important to recognise this and acknowledge that it may be difficult for some people to discuss certain topics. Do your best to respect someone’s cultural beliefs, but also allow space for them to seek support.

One thing you may want to explore is if a person is able to draw support from within their cultural setting. Ask if they have access to support in their family, airline or maybe even a religious community. If that is not an option, ask if they are able to find support elsewhere, perhaps from an impartial and confidential organisation such as Resilient Pilot. Diversity is one of the best things about this industry and it need not be a barrier to talking about wellbeing and mental health. The opposite should be true.

Another thing that can prevent people from talking about mental health is the fear that they are not qualified to handle the response or they do not want to appear like they are interfering. Quite often, the first step in someone acknowledging there is an issue is someone else reaching out to them to ask if they’re ok. 

People rarely expect friends, family and colleagues to have all the answers, so try not to worry about having to solve any problems yourself.  Sometimes it just takes a listening ear from someone who genuinely cares to help a person.  If you think that someone may benefit from some professional help, you can gently ask if they’ve thought about talking to a doctor, AME, counsellor or support service.  Check if your airline has a peer support programme or access to mental health and wellbeing support. Pointing this out may go a long way to helping someone access additional support.  If you or someone you know has had a positive experience of using such services, then why not share these stories? It could help your colleague see that it’s fine to talk to someone else.

So, we’ve explored some of the potential barriers to starting a conversation around wellbeing and mental health. We know it is an important topic and that there’s a long way to go to normalise these conversations and reduce stigma within the industry. But airlines and regulators are now putting policies and recommendations in place to facilitate support for our workforce.  The next step is for us as members of the industry and aviation community to start speaking up and sharing our experiences. We need to normalise them.

Are you still feeling hesitant to begin that conversation? 

Ask yourself why that may be.  Perhaps you could even use that hesitancy to start talking to someone.  After all, it only takes one person to start a conversation.

Please visit our website resilientpilot.com to learn more. If you need someone to talk to, we can help. Our volunteer mentors provide a discreet, confidential and free opportunity to start a safe conversation.

If there is a relevant topic you’d like us to cover in a future column, please let us know supported@resilientpilot.com

Stay resilient!

It is these types of questions that will be asked across all industries, and will be on the minds of delegates from the nearly 200 countries that will come together in November to discuss sustainability and how states can meet and further net zero commitments. I am, of course, talking about COP26.

As aviation geeks will know, it is at ICAO, the International Civil Aviation Organization, not COP26 where key decisions and policymaking regarding the reduction of aircraft emissions take place. That said, the importance of COP26, expected to be the first time in five years when states come together to agree enhanced emissions targets, cannot be understated. Nor can the potential impact of representatives from industries, including aviation coming together to discuss policy priorities.

Indeed, the spotlight will be on aviation even before the conference kicks off, with delegates flying into the host country – the UK – from all over the globe. There’s little doubt that the media and the industry’s biggest critics will be scrutinising these choices of transportation. In fact, we’ve already seen nonprofits organising travel for delegates via ‘greener climate trains’ from Amsterdam to Glasgow in protest (not a quick journey by any means).

Of course, there is also a major opportunity for aviation to demonstrate the progress made. British Airways has already pledged that it will source sustainable aviation fuel during the conference for all flights between London, Glasgow and Edinburgh, with a carbon reduction of 80% compared to traditional jet fuel. Meanwhile, Cambridge University, in partnership with HRH The Prince of Wales, has launched an Aviation Impact Accelerator (AIA) which will simulate growth scenarios and the resource requirements for aircraft to decarbonise.

These are all fantastic steps in demonstrating what is possible, but it’s the long-term policy decisions that will be the true test of COP’s success. To quote the President of COP26, Alok Sharma, “We need to move beyond people restating their long-held positions. I think we have to find a landing zone.” This is why I was heartened to see a recent press release from London Heathrow urging the UK Government to capitalise on the success of COP and remove one of the most significant barriers to short-medium term decarbonisation for industry with the lack of supply of sustainable aviation fuels (SAF). 

The press release called on the government to use this moment to implement a competitive pricing mechanism to increase supply, potentially a Contracts for Difference Model, which would increase investor confidence and create the basis for a long-term fuels industry (something I covered in more detail in my last article). This could give a significant boost to both a UK industry in sustainable fuels and the carriers who can rely on a stable supply for their emissions reduction targets – a long-term outcome that would reach far beyond this two-week conference.

The core focus for COP26 is, of course, not just action from industry stakeholders, but that of states. Here some key questions remain concerning some of the biggest polluters, including China and India who have missed the deadline for submitting updated climate plans ahead of COP. Indeed, China said recently that it was unlikely to attend the conference.

No doubt it will be an eventful two weeks in November, with the world waiting to see if the UK host can achieve the necessary global carbon reduction targets. As Sharma said, we have to find a landing zone. Whether this will happen in Glasgow however, is yet to be seen…

To find out more about the UK’s hosting of COP26 and how you can even get involved and attend events in the green zone, please visit https://ukcop26.org/ 

‘Transport Day’ will take place on November 10, 2021.

To look at aviation in focus (one of the most notoriously difficult industries to decarbonise), some context has to first be given. Whilst most consumers are aware of what green transport by car looks like – for example, choosing to drive a hybrid or electric vehicle – few are likely to be aware of what that pathway looks like when they book their flights, or board an aircraft on the tarmac. 

Whilst it’s well understood that we won’t be seeing long-haul electric flights in the immediate term, one pathway to securing lower carbon emissions over the next few years is that of sustainable jet fuels (also known as “SAF”). It is these fuels – capable of being made from recycled industry emissions or even household waste – that have been a core ambition in airlines’ pledges to decarbonise, although they face challenges with low supply and associated high costs of production.

So, do the UK & EU proposals on aviation have a plan to tackle this issue and accelerate the uptake, so we can all be flying on sustainable jet fuels shortly? Well, sort of. Both have chosen to adopt a “stick” approach with mandating requirements for industry to adopt sustainable fuels, although questions remain about whether this alone is enough to stimulate the significant production needed to get us all on those flights.

To look at these proposals in more detail, the European Commission outlines plans for:

• A requirement for fuel suppliers to offer a minimum blend of sustainable jet fuels starting at:
  • 2% from 2025
  • 20% in 2035
  • and eventually; 63% in 2050
• The removal of tax exemptions for aviation on kerosene
• A refuelling obligation for all flights at Union airports

The UK has also committed to mandating sustainable fuels on industry but is yet to release further detail on their own requirements, saying this will be laid out for consultation “shortly”. It is worth reflecting that this delay may be somewhat purposeful on the UK’s part given any potential for market distortion should their plans see different percentages of blending requirements across the UK and EU. Indeed, any difference in their proposals is likely to face criticism on patchwork policy for what is in majority, an international industry.

Whilst the EU’s proposals do appear ambitious and leading the way in this aspect, one of the key challenges facing the wider adoption of sustainable fuels has always been the low production and high associated costs. This is seen in the fact that worldwide, the only plant continuously producing these fuels is based in the US with a few batch-based production facilities across the EU (so, still a way to go!). This has led Airlines for Europe to warn that any premature implementation of fuel requirements that’s not under mature market conditions “would lead to higher prices”.

One potential solution (which only forms one sentence in the EU’s proposals) – is that of “CfD” or “Contracts for Difference”. Widely renowned for its success in expanding the solar and wind industry to become one of the cheapest forms of low-carbon electricity generation, this policy tool uses  reverse auctioning to drive down costs, whilst giving the producer a fixed contract in time to reduce investor uncertainty. The EU in its proposal expresses its hope this funding mechanism will be explored “to facilitate the certification of innovative sustainable aviation fuels technologies”. There is also some indication the UK might explore this tool, saying they will consider whether “further innovative policy mechanisms are needed to provide greater confidence to UK SAF producers”.

Whilst the EU will likely be ahead of the UK & set the marker on what sustainable fuel obligations should look like, perhaps the most ambitious policy mechanism to support the industry achieve its decarbonisation plans would be a tool like CfD. This would not only provide investor confidence but also help spur on domestic production and plant building (also supporting wider policy priorities like the UK Government’s ambition to create “green jobs”).

So, will we all be flying on sustainable jet fuels by 2025? Well, both the UK and European Commission’s proposals have a long way to go to be finalised. But what is clear is the imminent need to upscale production & support reduced costs for SAF (especially in time to meet any mandating requirements they may choose to make). With less than four years to go, watch this space…

Less obvious yet arguably the biggest infrastructure project of all is the plan to modernise our skies.  

Invisible to most except for air traffic controllers, it is these roads of the sky that enable people and goods to fly safely to and from their destinations and on time. But just like our highways, it is important to upgrade our airspace to reflect changing technology, reduce fragmentation and ensure that passengers arrive on time to their destinations and in the most sustainable way.

Modernisation improvements can employ the latest technology, reduce emissions, result in more direct routes and, potentially, mean an end to stacking – a phenomenon familiar to many travelers when circling above a city before coming into land (an annoying delay, no matter how good the view).

The importance of these projects is undeniable. The Airspace Change Organising Group estimates that modernisation in the UK could reduce future CO2 emissions by up to 20% by 2050. This makes it a vital component in the industry’s plans to decarbonise and reach net zero.

But in the face of a global pandemic and aircraft largely grounded for the significant part of a year, what are the prospects for getting modernisation off the ground?

In Europe, the Single European Sky project, which aims to defragment and modernise airspace efficiencies, has faced continuous challenges since its first implementation in 2004 for failing to meet its objectives.  The EU Commission and MEPs have, however, been looking to drive forward progress over the past year with plans to update the framework to incorporate new green deal climate goals, help achieve up to a 10% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, and improve European airspace management

But groups including the International Air Transport Association (IATA) have warned that the Single European Sky project faces collapse without greater support from member states. At this point, MEPs are ready for negotiations with the European Council to push on with plans regarding the revised proposals from the Commission, but we await further progress. With Council members challenging that some airspace management decisions are best taken at a national level, the space for compromise seems small.

Nevertheless, the UK Airspace Modernisation, which arguably faces fewer challenges in terms of scale, looks set to go ahead despite the COVID-19 pandemic. The UK Government recently re-committed funding for industry to remobilise and continue progress on developing the final stages of its masterplan design. The head of the Airspace Change Organising Group, Mark Swan, is optimistic on progress. In a Government press release he said recently: “We are delighted that Government has reaffirmed the essential role that airspace modernisation will play in helping the aviation industry to build back better from the pandemic…we will continue to work…to ensure this programme is one that delivers for all of the UK.”

In some ways, COVID-19 has afforded us a glimpse into what the success of airspace modernisation could look like. With low traffic levels, carriers have been able to fly directly, even leading to a new record for the quickest subsonic flight from New York to London in four hours and 56 minutes.

With the sustainability gains that these more direct and quicker routes could offer, it is key that governments and industry continue to work together on plans to build back better out of the pandemic. I, for one, think we would all enjoy an end to the ominous ‘flight delayed’ announcements.

Today I’m announcing changes to international travel, with a Traffic Light system to restart travel no earlier than 17th May.

We’ll ensure nothing jeopardises the collective effort of the British people over the last year, so this is rightly a cautious approach. Watch here pic.twitter.com/kWnykd8ZjW

— Rt Hon Grant Shapps MP (@grantshapps) April 9, 2021

Those who were hoping for a list of what countries will reopen for travel to the UK will be disappointed – and this isn’t something we can expect until “early May” according to the report. Instead we are presented with a “framework” for restarting international travel in a traffic light system. Essentially, green is go (but with caveats including a requirement for two tests), amber, a somewhat confusing middle point requiring self-isolating at home with testing, and red is enforced hotel quarantine.

The lack of clarity on the status of different countries will be disappointing to those not only hoping for a summer break this year, but the thousands of UK residents with family and friends living abroad. The Secretary of State in his address rightly highlights that over 27% of mothers in the UK were born overseas – just a small glimpse into the hardships that individuals must be facing in not being able to visit loved ones. Instead, we will have to wait until early May for an idea of what this list will look like, with some speculation that the list of countries might not even be released until a week before travel can potentially restart on 17^th.

So, to get into the meat of the report, what are the key takeaways?

• Expense will continue to be one of the greatest barriers facing travel – with the average cost of a PCR test in the UK at around £128 a country with even “green status” will significantly hinder any family trips. For a round trip based on a scenario where the destination country requires one test, this is still likely to come in around £300+ per person
• Vaccination does not provide an exemption or an equivalence to testing despite much media speculation in the UK about “vaccine passports”. This is not to say this case will remain – the report includes set review dates where the government could choose to include this exemption once the majority of the UK population has been offered their jabs & more research on transmission has taken place. One to look out for.
• Confidence needs to come from Government. Industry has taken significant steps on changing their bookings policy, meaning consumers can rebook with ease and little if no cost. But if lessons aren’t learnt from last year’s restart of travel where in the UK we saw countries changing status with less than 72 hours’ notice, this will be lost. Transparency on the criteria for a country’s status will be particularly key.
• Reciprocity will be on government’s mind about next steps. For example, we’ve seen plenty of media speculation that Israel will be one of the first countries to secure “green” status given their success on vaccination rollout. Yet, at the time of writing, all foreign nationals who are not citizens or residents are banned from entry to the country. If this remains, would it still secure a place on the list?
• It’s not just about aviation. The UK Government has made clear now that international cruise can restart alongside international travel. This is a crucial step for an industry that was effectively banned from operations, and will provide hope for nautical fans yet.  

So, it may seem that the new travel framework raises more questions than it solves. Whilst it’s not until early May when we will begin to see some of the crucial detail, it should be recognised that the UK is in many ways ahead of others on setting the blueprint for travel. The US notably is a country which has similarly made significant progress on vaccination, yet no timeline for the restart of international travel has yet been set. Where some European countries have begun to unilaterally lay out their plans for international travel (notably Cyprus, Greece, Portugal and Iceland) there is some divergence, such as the acceptance of vaccination as an alternative to mandatory testing. Whilst the UK Government has outlined its intention to work towards global standards in partnership with ICAO, this issue of divergence is likely to continue in the immediate term.

So, in sum, whilst we are yet to see the final detail on the UK Government’s plans, it should be recognised that direction of travel, is however broadly positive – the UK Government has a outlined a clear ambition through this report to restart international travel where it is compatible with public health objectives. Crucial to look out for will be the upcoming review dates – in June, July and October – where the framework will be reviewed on whether it can be adjusted. More to come….

Francesca is a Senior Consultant with Lexington, advising a range of infrastructure clients

We are Resilient Pilot and we’re delighted to work with AeroTime to start a conversation and invite reflection on these two important aspects of life. But first, a brief introduction.

In case you are not already familiar with us, Resilient Pilot is a not-for-profit, volunteer-run organisation set up in May 2020 to support pilot and cabin crew communities across the world through the pandemic and beyond. The vast majority of what we offer is available for free but, where charges apply, we have done our best to facilitate funding options and/or discounts for our ‘Resilient Crew Room’ members to benefit from.

We have an international following of pilots and crew at all stages of their careers: many have been made redundant or furloughed due to the pandemic; others have recently graduated from training at a time when job opportunities are, at best, limited; some are considering a flying career; and others continue to fly, but have nonetheless felt the impact of the pandemic in ways such as erratic flying rosters, the threat of instability, and survivor’s guilt. No one in our industry has been untouched by the events of the past (almost) two years. ‘We are all in the same storm, but not the same boat,’ as the saying goes, and Resilient Pilot aims to help aviators ‘prepare for take-off’, whenever that might be and whatever that might require for each individual.

We hold wellbeing at the heart of everything we do. It is interwoven into our three pillars of keeping pilots and cabin crew ‘supported, current and connected’. Our mentors provide a safe space for members to explore any wellbeing challenges they are experiencing, while also focusing on how to maintain competency. While we align our practices to those advocated by our industry, being an independent organisation and not connected to an airline, regulator or training organisation (ATO) provides those coming to us for support with total anonymity, discretion and confidentiality.

Our goal is to help pilots and cabin crew maintain their wellbeing to sustain mental health and keep them fit to fly. But we recognise things can be tough and you might find yourself on a downward trajectory meaning that additional support beyond our offering is required. In such instances we have collaborative partners – whose ethe align with our own – that we can signpost our members to for peer support, counseling and mental health first aid. 

To use an airline safety analogy, we believe in ‘putting our own mask on before helping others’ and we encourage our mentors to make their own wellbeing a priority. They attend group sessions to develop their mentoring skills and monitor their own wellbeing. They also have access to one-to-one support from a mental health professional.    

Karen Bath, CEO Resilient Pilot & Liam Croucher MBACP, Resilient Pilot 

By focusing on wellbeing alongside competencies, we hope to have a positive impact on mental health, something which has been – and remains – a sensitive topic. Stigma and fear surround mental health, particularly in aviation where pilots can be hesitant to disclose stress, anxiety, low mood and depression lest they lose their medical and are forced to stop flying. 

As with overcoming any stigma, a good starting point is encouraging conversation to normalise discussions around mental health. Combined with regulator, airline and ATO buy-in to peer support networks, these initiatives aim to demystify the subject of mental health and empower pilots and cabin crew to reach out and seek assistance.

Annual awareness days such as Suicide Prevention Day and World Mental Health Day (WMHD) are designed to allow space to talk about these important issues – often considered taboo. The theme for this year’s WMHD – ‘Mental Health in an Unequal World’ – comes at a time when inequality and prejudice are being called out on an international level. 

Resilient Pilot’s foundations model

Sadly, inequality and diversity are often linked. Prejudice can be a contributing factor to mental health issues for those in minority groups; years of micro and macroaggressions can have a profound effect on one’s identity and self-worth which can permeate every level of our existence, from personal relationships to career progression.

Providing mentoring/coaching, as Resilient Pilot does, to former, current and aspiring pilots and cabin crew across the globe means that we work with a diverse range of people. Sadly, it is unsurprising that issues of inequality arise demonstrating that we still have work to do in this area. 

Diversity is something we want to celebrate and promote in aviation which is why it overarches everything we do at Resilient Pilot. We are proud of our diverse team of volunteers from across the globe, reflecting a mix of cultures and with varied operational background/current experience. And we embrace the experience and perspective each one of them brings. However, we recognise we are underrepresented in some respects and welcome applications from prospective volunteers to help us further diversify our offering.

As we hope we have demonstrated, we are passionate about wellbeing and mental health. We want to help normalise the conversation around them in aviation. We are, therefore, excited to bring you a monthly contribution on these important topics. You can expect informative articles on self-care, stress management, and how to support ourselves and others when times are tough.  

But we’d like our ‘column’ here in AeroTime to be a conversation among aviators, so if there is a relevant topic you’d like us to cover, please let us know at info@resilientpilot.com

Please visit our website resilientpilot.com to learn more and to join our Resilient Crew Room.

Stay resilient!