How has the crisis affected the ANSP business model?

The COVID-19 crisis challenged the industry for its very survival over the past two years. In Europe alone, the network lost over 3 billion passengers. Relatively few airlines, airports and ANSPs collapsed, even though that might have been what many were expecting.

We did see that, in the face of a revenue drop of over $500 billion, airlines and airports were able to significantly cut their costs. But still, many of them needed state aid and where that was not enough, they took on additional debt in their quest to survive.

When we look at the ANSPs in the European Union, we see that even though they saw service requirements fall 60%, they were only able to reduce their costs 1%. This resulted in a €5.4 billion revenue shortfall in 2020 alone. Member States – as owners of the large majority of ANSPs – provided significant financial support for the ANSPs to survive. And these same Member States are now expecting to cover the losses that were made through higher ATC charges, making the airlines furious. But would any of that point to privatisation of ANSPs as the solution?

Personally, I don’t think so. What we do need to do is look at ways to make ANSPs operate more efficiently, have ANSPs work together, and become more resilient for future shocks to the industry. They are bound to happen. So better be prepared.

Given the timescales involved in training ATCOs and implementing technology, can ANSPs ever be agile enough to better respond to future shocks?

If an agile company is one that can respond quickly to market changes by implementing new technology and recruiting or training new staff, then the answer is probably no. Lead times for personnel and technology will always be long.

If, on the other hand, agile means that an organisation can make decisions quickly and take action on those decisions, then any ANSP should be able to function in an agile fashion.

ATCO training is still a time-consuming effort. A lot has already been done to synchronise training requirements for different ATCO positions (units), which resulted in common basic training followed by dedicated unit training. Unfortunately, at complex and busy airports or centres, this unit training often requires long periods of on-the-job training as simulation is not a complete replacement.

Also, many of the students who fail, fail in the final stage of this intensive training, using up a great deal of training capacity without a positive result. The focus to cope with this issue should be on lowering ATCO workload and making the ATCO job less complex. This can be achieved, for example, by the use of new technologies or by the redesign of airspace and routes. But other factors contribute to increasing complexity like expanding environmental regulations. A balance must be found in all these factors to shorten the required ATCO training time and increase the overall training output.

With the exception of crisis situations, many of the current challenges to safe and efficient air traffic management should not be seen as the result of sudden changes. The retirement waves that are affecting staffing levels should not have been a surprise to some ANSPs; they were predictable and could have been acted on in a timelier fashion.

Many technological changes have also had a long lead time. Integrating drones into airspace has been talked about for a long time, but many States are still unable to resolve the safety concerns associated with Unmanned Aircraft System Traffic Management (UTM).

What is the best approach to drones and urban mobility? Should ANSPs be offering a service and do regulations and standards need global harmonisation?

There are two schools of thought regarding drones and urban mobility; one believes that these vehicles, particularly the latter, are a passing fad. The other – and To70 subscribes to this viewpoint – is that these vehicles are here to stay. ANSPs will need to develop a mix of approaches to integrate some vehicles into the ATM system, while segregating or even excluding others from traditional parts of the airspace network.

Cross-border navigation with drones and urban mobility vehicles is not likely, we feel, to be a large part of future markets. This limits the need for the full harmonisation of operating requirements. Design and manufacture standards will be of use to those developing these vehicles.

There may come a time, in the future, when parts of these new industries become large enough to warrant harmonised operating procedures as a mitigation against errors by crews using the vehicles in more than one State. At that time, the excellent international cooperation facilitated by the Joint Authorities for Rulemaking on Unmanned Systems (JARUS) can be used to further the development of drones and eVTOL vehicles.

What are the most exciting technologies either available now or on the horizon from an air navigation point of view?

The most exciting technology, in my view, is Datalink Baseline-2. The first operational use of downlinking 4D trajectories in tactical air traffic control has started by EUROCONTROL MUAC. Sharing detailed trajectory and flight performance information will allow Trajectory Based Operations (TBO).

The next step would be to start sharing data to develop local TBO solutions. These solutions will not immediately support the full implementation of the agreed 4D trajectory, but provides the operational experience needed to move from an academic concept to an operational one. And even the first steps could provide benefits in predictability and efficiency.

A second exciting technology for ANSPs is System-Wide Information Management (SWIM). Using common internet solutions for sharing information rather than highly strict protocols allows for the rapid development of operation concepts. Of course, safety critical communication requires strict protocols. But for extended arrival management it can be based on a less strict standard, which means new operational concepts could be tested without a high development impact beforehand.

How can ANSPs play their part in aviation sustainability?

We believe ANSPs can play their part in two ways: making their own operation sustainable and facilitating the sustainability efforts of other members of the aviation chain.

Setting targets, reducing direct emissions, reducing waste and offsetting are all examples of how ANSPs are making their own operation more sustainable. Once an ANSP is committed to make their own operation sustainable, it can effectively start facilitating the sustainability efforts of other stakeholders in the aviation chain.

The biggest impact is the revision and optimisation of flight routes and flight profiles. This will result in fuel savings and lower CO₂ emissions. We also see ANSPs as an important stakeholder for reducing non-CO₂ emissions, since that requires a different approach to optimising flight routes.

Overall, what would a healthy, sustainable, air traffic management industry look like?

The ATM industry – at least at the European level – will be healthy and sustainable when ANSPs and other stakeholders shift towards new technologies that have sustainability as one of the key performance areas.

Increased technology makes further automation possible, like remote towers, which reduces costs. Also, restrictions due to national boundaries or flight information regions (FIR) need to be lifted to allow greater efficiency in routes, again reducing costs.

An increase in charges would negatively impact the recovery of the airline industry and sustainability. Airlines avoid certain FIRs so charges must be balanced.

The privatisation of ANSPs, where ANSPs are completely responsible for services and revenues, including a balance sheet with reserves for bad times, could be a way to become more resilient to future shocks. However, ANSPs must deliver services to airports and airspace where it may not be profitable to do so, which suggests closer cooperation and more efficient operations is a better way forward.

Are there any other significant trends, challenges or opportunities in the industry?

ANSPs must balance providing capacity with reducing workload per flight.

Capacity needs accurate and timely traffic demand forecasts, so resources can be planned accordingly. Aerodrome stakeholders must share more reliable information about flight status and take-off time. Airport Collaborative Decision Making (ACDM) is a concept endorsed by ICAO, ACI, IATA and CANSO to enable this enhanced predictability.

Yet for all this support from international organisations, performance reporting for predictability purposes is yet to be established. Local experiences are insufficiently reported and shared. National claims are made on successful implementations, rarely on actual performance results. For the world and global aviation to benefit from enhanced efficiency, and for ANSPs to utilise their resources optimally, accurate predictions are a necessity.

What are the main areas for safety improvement?

There is pressure on ANSPs to be more efficient. This is related to ever increasing air traffic demand and to sustainability. Ensuring that safety levels remain high while these influences are addressed is critical. Runway safety and the chances of runway incursion remain an area that demands attention. 

Safety culture and safety management within ANSPs is also a topic that requires constant attention to ensure that the ANSP works to a high level of safety as the world around it changes.