The Aircraft Commerce and Aircraft-IT Airline & Aerospace MRO & Flight Operations IT Conference – EMEA occurred at Heathrow between June 7 and 9, 2022. It was the Aircraft Commerce group's first face-to-face conference in over two years. As the kick-off conference for a renewed normal, it was a huge success. Numbers were significant, the highest attendance on record supported by a sold-out exhibition space, representing the importance of airline and supplier collaboration in restoring the industry to its pre-covid levels of activity and operational excellence. Kudos to Ed, Charles and the whole team for another well-organised, informative and relevant conference.
Perspective
This "trip report" is written from an airline management pilot's perspective, who has been attending similar events for over two decades. The focus of the report will be the Flight Operations track. Please feel free to use those pieces of interest to you. If you'd like more information, the opportunity to discuss the "report" or help to communicate imperatives from the conference to your organisation, please get in touch by any of the means listed here.
Highlights of the Conference
Flight Optimisation Software
Flight Optimisation software examples outnumbered every other system type on display at the conference, reinforcing the supplier community's perception of the importance airlines place on fuel economics even under the extreme cash flow stress of COVID. While fuel saving is undoubtedly a vital issue for airlines, it was interesting to see the number of these systems in the showroom displays. One supplier noted that flight efficiency or flight profile optimisation (FPO) software is "all airlines are telling us they want." Perhaps that's a perception of that particular supplier because every supplier booth was bustling throughout the conference suggesting airlines were interested in everything.
Supporting the FPO view, one discussion demonstrated a particular airline's experience with these software tools. By adopting operational nuances like 'Single Engine Taxi Out' (RETO) and 'Single Engine Taxi In' (RETI), uninterrupted climb and descent and flying an abbreviated STAR, the airline demonstrated what it described as a "perfect flight." The "perfect flight" presentation showed measurable and statistically significant (~6.2%) fuel savings over the flight (based on the pictures of the FMC pages in the accompanying PowerPoint).
However, the eventual outcome relied on significant upfront effort to set arrangements with the relevant ANSPs and airports to ensure direct and uninterrupted taxiing for departure and arrival, direct enroute tracking and a reduced STAR. The flight "saved" 371 kg (exactly...) of fuel compared to a "normal" flight along the same route (LHR-GLA). The presentation was informative and illustrated what nearly everyone knows should be possible. However, the talk and accompanying video presentation generated marked discussion about the repeatability of the model flight and the dependence on specific OEM aircraft automation to achieve a stable approach off a highly abbreviated STAR into a relatively short final approach segment. The aerobatics necessary to ensure the aircraft approach is stable in time is, apparently, only available to one brand of aircraft and only when flown by a 'special' group of pilots. The implication being it doesn't work for the rest of us.
Reflecting on this demonstration, it would seem that achieving the outcome would require the airports and NATS to 'enable' the "perfect flight" at the expense of other aircraft movements. A tabletop hypothetical would arrive at the same conclusions - with less disruption - as has been established innumerable times in Eurocontrol and other activities. Additionally, the no doubt arduous effort required to arrange this demonstration (of the obvious?) would not have come without some cost, which, on analysis, would include some degree of carbon footprint.
The critical issue in this discussion seems to be that although the presentation proved that efficient use of airports, airspace and efficient trajectories indeed provide quantifiable benefits, the entire system needs to benefit rather than one flight at the expense of other flights and the overall system outcome. One aircraft saved 371 kg of fuel and 1,170 kg of CO2 in this example. What was the fuel/CO2 induced by the system necessary to give the 'perfect flight' its prioritised movement from LHR to GLA? And while fuel and carbon emissions are a crucial focus for the industry, so are airline bottom lines. 371 kg of fuel costs about US$480 (~£400). Not an insignificant saving considering the airline's 46 or so (at today's count) flights per week over this route. But, setting aside the CO2, what was the bottom line saving for the airline after weeks of effort to arrange the flight at management pilot salaries - for one flight, and why is this efficiency not the norm?
Questions Left Unanswered
- FPO seems to have a granular capability that can discern a saving of 5 kg for flying optimised descent speeds, seven for optimised climb speeds, six for packs off take off, and two for not using the APU (with no indication of how long?), among other data. Why can't it discern the value of "lateral route optimisation" instead of simply suggesting "large fuel benefits compared to flight plan?"
- The substantial benefits in this example include late APU start, single-engine taxi out, reduced flap take off, reduced engine taxi in, and continuous climb and descent. Leaving out questionable practices like "low power/low drag and relying on OEM-dependent automation to mitigate the potential for rushed approaches, why aren't outcomes like this a matter of course, for everyone, without having to arrange 'special' circumstances for every flight?
Well, they could be. Read on.
Vendor Showcases
The recent format for the vendor showcases was a speedy way of seeing what everyone has and, in a few cases, what differentiates them from others. Most, not all, stuck to the allotted time and did a great job showcasing their systems. Apart from the rush to FPO software, most supplier showcases demonstrated continuing evolution of their systems. From many perspectives, connectivity is not assumed in vendor systems yet is continually discussed as some yet-to-emerge nirvana that will provide the next level of capability - with little or no detail about potential, tangible benefits.
Apart from the FPOs, there was a definite emphasis on fuel-saving in the discussions. It was interesting to learn that saving "fuel is a consequence of optimum selection of speeds and altitudes through the FMS and flight planning." One would assume in this era in the industry that this would go without saying. But it does emphasise a point; there is a renewed spotlight on fuel-saving programs, and now, FPO applications suggesting fuel, not cash, is king again. One look at the direction of the price, and everyone knows why.
Trajectory Based Operations
Trajectory Based Operations, or TBO, was a headline subject at the conference, with an hour-long workshop and two Keynote discussions in the plenary session dedicated to the topic. The opening message from the presenters (Closed Loop and Eurocontrol) was that it is “way past time for the airlines to get the concept into their strategic outlook and operational program portfolios.”
The Workshop illustrated the enigma that is the precarious state of the airline industry — despite its role as an economic engine in world trade. The Workshop demonstrated through interactive surveys that:
- Contrary to discussion during the COVID hiatus, the cohort of industry people at this conference had significant time in the industry.
- Those with 11 to 20 and greater than 20 years of service were the dominant group by a substantial margin.
- Another question reinforced the low levels of confidence in the industry when attendees, asked whether they’d sponsor and pay for their kids to get into the airline industry, responded “No” by a margin of two to one.
- The survey revealed that people thought the industry would be either “somewhat” or “substantially” different from the industry existing before COVID. About five per cent believed that the industry would undergo forced structural change due to COVID, drones and AAM, and the industry’s environmental goals.
- Almost seven per cent believed that the industry’s environmental aspirations would eventually collapse demand because of the costs that customers will have to bear.
The results of the survey and the data presented about the state of the industry were confronting.
Eurocontrol presented empirical data that pointed at the airlines as the reason for most delays in the aviation system in 2017 and 2018 in Europe. The data showed that airline primary and recovery delays were considerably more significant than those caused by the ATC system directly; albeit the ATC system becomes the focus of delays as airlines attempt to recover schedules. Eurocontrol also made the point with an effective cartoon that being able to ‘clear’ everyone to “do whatever you want” is untenable as traffic levels and requests for unplanned changes (Direct-To/Altitude/Speed/Route) grow. It becomes an issue of diminishing returns and makes the assumptions about the benefits of FPO questionable.
Another confronting data point was the cost of “system delay” globally. 2017, 2018 and 2019, respectively, were the busiest years on record for the airline industry, with growing scarcity sapping tens of billions from industry revenues. In 2019, data from IATA put the global cost at nearly two and a half times the profit for the whole industry at a whopping $66 bn.
Also illuminating was the data presented about the industry’s absolute environmental footprint, doubling the effect of the carbon focus of the industry’s environmental action plan. According to NASA research data presented, contrails are a significant contributor to global warming, accounting for “more global warming than all the carbon burnt by the industry”, and yet, are relatively simple and inexpensive to mitigate. After its recent “perfect flight” demonstration, a Middle Eastern Airline is continuing a program of avoidance of air masses conducive to producing contrails. A recent European study proposes that mitigation on a broad scale is inexpensive for the benefits achieved. The Workshop noted that contrails have been an “issue” for the industry since 2009 and were addressed explicitly at the “Heathrow Big Green Day” in July 2010. Yet, the industry, including its supranational bodies (ICAO and IATA), has collectively ignored the opportunity to act.
A solution to what ails us
The solution is TBO, according to the Workshop and the Keynotes. TBO is an encompassing, strategic, operational concept that has existed since 2010 in ICAO’s ‘Global Air Traffic Management Operational Concept’ (GATMOC). The goal of TBO is to “achieve an interoperable global air traffic management system, for all users during all phases of flight, that meets agreed levels of safety, provides for optimum economic operations, is environmentally sustainable and meets national security requirements.”
The GATMOC implies that implementation will be “given effect” by SESAR and NextGen activities. However, the Workshop and Keynotes demonstrated that airlines also have a crucial role in making TBO work and illustrated some of the operational considerations necessary to achieve readiness for operations in a TBO environment.
The Workshop and Keynotes demonstrated that TBO is about balancing airspace demand and capacity, analysing schedules and planned trajectory data in phases (Months, Weeks and Days) before departure. The Workshop and Keynotes notified airlines that procedural and technological capability would be necessary to build an airline’s readiness for TBO. For example:
- Operationally, “Full Time, 4D Trajectory Based Operations” will eventually be applied gate-to-gate.
- Sharing data about schedules and trajectories and transactions with data such as, but not limited to, Met, performance, and movement advice will occur via the SWIM network, needing airlines to subscribe their operations and systems to SWIM. Depending on how airlines want to arrange this, it can be easy or not, but consideration of SWIM is critical and urgent.
- FPL 2012 will sunset between 2030 and 2032, potentially earlier, being replaced by FF-ICE and driving a different approach to flight planning.
- CPDLC and PBN are crucial components. So is a connected EFB for most of the current world fleet to facilitate the provision of Extended Projected Profile (EPP) data, among other things, into the symbiotic contract between the aircraft, ATM and the airline dispatch department.
- ATM will be more strategic rather than tactical in its execution. AI will evolve into the ATM and tactical control aspects of ATM.
- Airline dispatch department capability will become crucial, taking on an increased role in the “sharing, maintenance and use” of aircraft trajectories. That is the trajectory management of the flight, and it will no longer be just about the pilots and ATC once the doors are closed.
Airlines must also consider more than the in-flight aspects of TBO.
TBO analyses schedules and planned trajectories (days to weeks) ahead of the flight. To be able to produce a result, this analysis must assume the aircraft will depart when it is supposed to. Hence, rigorous attention to process and digitalisation across the customer flow from the kerb to the seat and managing all aspects of the aircraft departure or turnaround above and below the wing will be crucial to ensure aircraft run ‘on time’. The industry is on notice that ‘on time’ will eventually be reflected in a seconds-wide window rather than the bloated 15 minutes we’re all comfy with today. According to Eurocontrol, the critical limitation to successful TBO implementation is the ability of airlines to get aircraft airborne at precisely the time necessary to achieve the requested trajectory, considering other airspace demands and other aircraft seeking the most optimal gate-to-gate outcome. The discussions urged that airlines consider the wide-ranging requirements of TBO now.
The Workshop and Keynote presentations wound up with a couple of explicit messages.
- ANSPs are advanced in developing the ATM-side components necessary for TBO, such as FF-ICE and SWIM. So is implementation planning on the ANSP-side.
- Apart from a few flights proving TBO works, airlines and IATA have been collectively missing from the table, leaving a chasm in implementation planning. A multi-decade delay is likely if EFB, Digital Data, PBN, LINK 2000 and other critical industry programs are any indication. The airline industry does not have that luxury.
- TBO is an industry-wide program; one airline or even a few doesn’t make TBO work.
- Drones, AAM, RPAS and UAM, to catch a few of the emerging acronyms, will be TBO capable before airlines. This industry recognises the critical role TBO will have in ensuring a smooth, efficient and safe operation.
- Addressing the ballooning and eye-watering cost of delays in the ‘system’, becoming more efficient, and making a considerable dent in their collective environmental footprint, requires airlines to elevate TBO to the forefront of operational strategy.
- Digitalisation is urgent. An app like FPO will not deliver TBO. TBO will require a backbone of integrated data and information linking every aspect of the airline operation, legacy systems, and external actors such as ATM, SWIM, Airport Operations, CBP, and the like.
- TBO, while resting on better integrated and available data, does not require wholesale replacement of airline systems. The ability to connect and share internally and externally is simple and inexpensive compared to replacement. The missing piece is will and willingness. The combative posture between airlines and airports and airlines and ANSPs will drag on implementation at a high cost to the industry.
- TBO drives efficiency and, according to the Workshop and Keynotes, delivers significant operational, economic and environmental benefits across the readiness pathways that are necessary to make it work.
An Irreverent Perspective
Reading through this perspective on the recent conference, the somewhat irreverent tone is evident. It is a purposeful attempt to garner focus. Our industry has issues well demonstrated by the data and narrative presented in the Workshop and Keynote discussions at this conference and other forums before and through COVID. A solution to congestion, delay and a considerable slice of the recent environmental aspirations exists as Trajectory Based Operations. Unfortunately, the industry often does not look critically in the mirror, and it is often seduced by the latest widget rather than critical self-analysis of itself or its needs. The rush to FPO applications is a case in point. A cursory analysis of FPO software for an EFB in the context of crowded airspace would reveal the time-limited nature of the use case. It is untenable to think that as capacity approaches 2019 levels and beyond, the system can or should support a more and more random approach to aircraft movement. What’s more astonishing is that some brilliant people think a haphazard tactical approach to flight management is a better option than collectively applied, strategic and orderly air traffic management.
For an airline, TBO is a collection of programs that yields a holistic outcome generating positive consequences for an airline individually and the industry collectively. That TBO, like the contrail issue, has been missed or ignored since 2010, as airlines expect everyone else to fix everything that ails them, is breathtaking.