Airspace management

The only real cure for the situation is to move air traffic control into the modern age.

It is amazing that aircraft are still routed manually, when the ability to automate traffic control has been available for decades. Implementing such a system would be expensive. But the costs of the current approach are vastly greater.

Contrary to conventional wisdom, the ATC system and weather represents only 20% of the airline's delay, congestion and profitability problem. Nor is the problem, again, in opposition to conventional wisdom, a lack of runways or over scheduling.

Further, while everyone recognizes the importance of FAA's NextGen and Eurocontrol's Sesar programs, currently, their focus is primarily on the technical part of the solution. What is needed first and foremost is the "process" side of the solution, i.e., the required process to put the right aircraft at the right place, at the right time.

Conversely, 80% of the problem resides within the airlines themselves, and is the direct result of the lack of a tactical aircraft management process from a system perspective by the airlines. Airlines don't track aircraft, don't manage aircraft in real time and mostly just wait for their curb to curb production process to play out day to day.

And while a fire and forget process may work for a military missiles, it is disastrous for airlines and the ATC system. Interdependent Supply Chain and logistical processes are completely foreign to the operational side of the aviation industry, i.e., the airline’s curb to curb production process, especially when it comes to the movement of the aircraft.

Not only does this have a huge financial impact on the airlines, the resultant chaos and variance, is also the biggest part of the delay, environmental and ATC problem.

In other words, while most believe that it is an ATC problem that is at the root cause of the airline problems, it is in fact the opposite - it is an airline problem (no real time tactical asset management from a system perspective) that is at the root cause of the ATC problem. And much of the airline problem is fully in control of the airlines to mitigate.

This is a system problem that everyone is trying to fix locally using new technology. Not going to happen.

My points, which no one verbalizes, include:

1. Airlines are content to deliver upwards of 40% of their product late.

2. Airlines spend 10s of millions of dollars each year to schedule their flights, schedule their crews, schedule their gates, schedule their airport operations and build their daily flight plans, yet spend little to nothing on the real time execution of those schedules and plans. And of course it shows. i.e., the 40% defect rate mentioned above.

3. Airlines lose upwards of 15% to 20% of their productive utilization by buffering their schedules. This drives costs through the roof, and the lost opportunity cost on the revenue side is in the Billions annually for each airline and represents the airline industry's largest recoverable cost.

4. The airlines revenue problem is quality, which is so poor (again, 40% late), consumers have been taught to incorrectly believe that the airline seat is a commodity. It's not.

5. In the last 30 years, with 10s of Billions spent and lots of people working very hard, airline operations and ATC process have seen little, if any change. 30 years of effort and huge sums of money spent and no significant change, which, by itself, should raise a red flag? This is no way to run a business in today's Six Sigma, Supply Chain world.

The solution - Operational Excellence, must be driven, first and foremost, by stabilizing the movement of the aircraft by the individual airlines.

Airlines have within their internal control the ability to rapidly decrease defects (i.e., delays) and costs within 2 to 3 years. The benefit of Operational Excellence, as an operating model for all airlines, is that it simultaneously produces the following results.

• Significantly increases airline profitability (lower cost, higher revenue)
• Mitigates most delays and congestion
• Reduces weather problems
• Significantly reduces ATC complexity
• Makes NextGen technologies very valuable
• Significantly improves employee morale

Simply put, there is no other single solution that can be produce such across the board benefits so quickly.

Finally, the solution to most of the airline’s problem can be found in 2 areas - quality and block time. As is required for success, Operational Excellence provides much more of the first, and much less of the second.

Calling The National, the government-owned-and-run mouthpiece of the Abu Dhabi royal family, an "excellent newspaper," is a bit of a stretch. At best it's a highly partial USA Today.

MBaiada provides an interesting perspective. It would be great to see this developed in more detail.

I am skeptical that international airspace is an absolute constaint versus one constained by operational and political issues. I don't think many areass achieve U.S. throughput.

The challenge with NEXGEN is that it offers tremendous increases in efficiency and reaction time when it provides pilots the ability to see and avoid as if in VFR conditions. Essentially it has the capabillity of taking controllers out of the loop of traffic separation and place them more into airspace management and oversight. The federal navigation system is moving from ground based facilities toin cockpit equipment. The only way to maintain universal and rapid deployment would be to have a semi-public utility company take over avionics, in essence leasing this equipment to the airlines. Lease rates could also be progressively scheduled to make it affordable for non commercial aircraft to safely interact with scheduled service (Its carriers who have the greatesa benefit from efficient airspace.)

Finally, there is a need to have a national sunset provision on local runway use and noise abatement rules. No rule that is providing a benefit should expire, but new technology and change in land use have reduced the benefit of many. Meanwhile the delay and energy costs have risen due to much higher traffic volumes than existed the 3 or 4 decades ago that many were enacted. Local airports are politically parlyzed to initiate such action. There neeeds to be a federal rule to restore equity between justified avoidance of noise impacts and public interest in efficient air transportation.

Interesting comments. If only there were data that was actually consistent with this passionate post. 40% defect rate? Really? Check the real numbers. There is a greater than 40% defect rate in your stated statistics and claims.

In such an unstable economic environment, it's almost shocking to hear about an influx or increase within flights to and from the New York area. Athough there are various other airports as well (ex. HPN, a little bit out of the city) I can only wonder why there is such traffic. A little bit of Google research drove me to this press release from Private Jet Services Group: "Private Jet Services Group Announces Record Breaking Sales Figures for 2011" http://www.prweb.com/releases/2011/12/prweb9020607.htm

In a "down economy" it sounds like there is a significant gain in something that this company (PJS) has identified and offers their clients. So are private jet chartering the increase in traffic or has there been an increase in commercial flights?

Also, to learn more about PJS they can be reached at www.pjsgroup.com.

Curious as to what you mean when you say that that "There is a greater than 40% defect rate in your stated statistics and claims"?

My definition of a defect is when an aircraft arrives at the gate past the scheduled arrival time, which is upwards of 40%. In other words, actual on time arrival performance is in the low 60% range.

The numbers posted in the media (approximately 80%) are the percentage of flights that are up to 15 minutes late (DOT on time)

What would you consider an airline defect and what numbers do you have?

Michael

As a B747-400 Captain, I have all of the touted NextGen technologies (GPS, Satcom, ADS, etc.), but, except for the speed of transmission, they provide no benefit over ground based navigational and communication equipment.

As I said, the problem is the process, not the technology. Trying to shoehorn modern technologies into a 50 year old seperation and sequencing process just won't work.

Michael

You make a very valid point. I have been looking at statistics based on "late arrival" as defined by the airlines. I agree with you that "on time" should mean "on time." I stand corrected. Thanks for making the point.

Gulliver, are you planing a move to Dubai or Abu Dhabi, in the near future?? Think twice, 'cos all that glitters ain't gold..

MBaiada,
Your comment is well taken. The operational benefits and potential air traffic control environmet that fully exploits NEXGEN is not here, in part due to the need for common equipage across the fleet. Your airline is penalized for making an early capital investment that cannot deliver full benefits until everyone is similarly equipped. It's akin to the efficiency that was realized in controlling tracon airspace once everyone had to have mode C with discrete beacon code. But it would be foolish to ignore any dimension of the problem, and I trust that betttter real time flight management and scheduling logistics also has its potential. I think collaborative decisionmaking with ATC and airlines has demonstrated benefits and can be applied in more situations to reduce the impact of congestion on airlines and passengers.

While I agree that it is very, very tempting to try to focus on all dimensions of the problem, it is not practical. Additionally, as you identified, with limited resources available at both the airlines and the FAA, it is also not possible.

Further, I would argue that most of what the airline industry sees as problems are, in fact, symptoms.

For example, I constantly hear that if 10 people are scheduled to land at 8 AM, 9 people must be late. Of course, Supply Chain logistical practices shows a different solution - land the first aircraft at 7:50 AM. But this requires a level of tactical control by the airlines that is just not present. Technology exists to accomplished this goal, but it is not being done.

Or consider that Southwest spent upwards of $100 million to install advanced avionics to reduce block time (scheduled time from gate to gate), which has been less than successful so far. SW tried to solve a sequencing problem with a navigational solution, which is like trying to put a square peg in a round hole.

Contrary to our current "fire and forget" aircraft movement process, where all aspects of the process (ATC and airlines) are managed locally, late in the process, the application of just-in-time, Supply Chain logistics from a system perspective would solve much of the delays and congestion with the airline industry.

The benefit of this solution is that it provides an immediate benefit to passengers, airlines and FAA, requires no new avionics, is already operational at 2 airlines, and is a process that demands better, faster and more accurate data, i.e., NextGen.

This changes the NextGen dynamic from a push problem with lots of resistance, to a pull solution that makes NextGen technologies profitable.

Michael

But I digress. We should be discussing airline economics, not technology.

Think back to the 1980s when GM, Ford and Chrysler shrunk from competition with Toyota and Honda. While the Big 3 laid blame everywhere (labor, dumping, anti-competitive practices, CAFÉ, etc.), at the end of the day they had a product their customers didn't like, using a grossly inefficient production process that generated a huge number of defects. And we all know how that turned out.

So now, 30 years later, airlines are in the same pickle, with a product their customers don't like, using a grossly inefficient production process that generates huge number of defects (i.e., 40% late). Literally, the airline’s Cost of Poor Quality (defects, production buffers, inefficiencies, etc.) is in the Billions annually for each large airline.

The airlines do not have an FAA, ATC, airspace, labor or runway problem. The lack of consistent profitability in the airline sector is actually a simple production problem.

And only when individual airlines declare ownership of the problem, and begin the process (yes, process) of putting the right part at the right place at the right time, over and over and over and over.... again will anything change.

Michael

As most of the comments are about technology rather than about UAE airspace, I thought some points from personal experience may be of interest. The first is that the main constraint at present is runways and (then) gates. Arriving on EK, to be kept circling for up to 45 mins is not unusual - and this in itself adds to airspace congestion. I have not flown Etihad recently but until the new Abu Dhabi airport terminal is ready, similar problems are likely given the pace at which new aircraft are being delivered. The second is that Dubai at least suffers from the same problems as any airport whose dominant user (EK) operated a hub and spoke model. In the case of Dubai this is accentuated by the fact that arriving or departing passenger numbers are dwarfed by those in transit - the periodic 'waves' of arrivals and the (90 - 180 mins later)"waves' of departures mean priods of intense crowding in the transit area of the terminals foolowed by periods of almost eeerie calm.

The National was a breath of fresh air when it started but it has withered a bit under constant personnel upheavals and the hot harsh reality of their constraints on reporting local issues. It remains by far the best English language paper in the UAE (probably the Gulf in fact) but, in an irritating exposition of the pettiness that infects so much protocol in the Gulf region, you won't manage to find a copy of this (Abu Dhabi-based) newspaper on board (Dubai-based) Emirates in any flight class or lounge (though a kind stewardess brought me the pilot's personal and only slightly used copy once)...

And on the issue of crowded Gulf airspace, I'm a reluctant (very) frequent flyer on Emirates and I can't recall a single on-time departure from Dubai in the past couple of years. I guess they have the perception advantage that 15 or 20 minutes late (increasingly more like 45 to 60 minutes though) on a long-haul international flight is not proprotionately a big deal compared to a North American domestic short-hop. Factor in Immigration and Customs at either end and the delay in the air is generally fairly inconsequential unless, of course you are making a tight conenction. Mind you anything that results in needing to spend less time in Dubai's congested, poorly designed and laid-out T3 should be seen as a benefit.