My interview with Sergio Martins, Director Air Traffic Management - Latin
America, Saab Group
Major
hub airports are running out of capacity needed to meet the growing demand for
air travel, and many others are facing the same problem at their busiest times.
And still, traffic growth at capacity constrained airports continues,
accelerating the risks of disruptions with far reaching consequences on
airlines, passengers, environment, and on the safety of air travel. In these
circumstances, easing this problem means either limiting the volume of traffic
to manageable levels (doesn’t seem feasible in the foreseeable future), waiting
for strategic adjustments to take place, or freeing up some airport capacities
by improving efficiency in decision making on the day of operations.
With the
latest option in mind, I came across articles written by Sergio Martins,
Director Air Traffic Management - Latin America, Saab Group, pointing to
the opportunities for improvement on airports´ airside. What makes these
articles stand out is that they provoke rethinking and refinement of current
practices encompassing relationships between airports, airlines, ATC and ground
handlers. And all that being expressed with passion and eagerness to contribute
to so much needed improvement in efficiency of decision making in one of the most
complex areas of airport and airline operations. His views
are supported by his firsthand experience in multiple areas of air transport
industry, including air traffic control, flight
operations, air/ground communications and airport management
systems, enabling him to see problems and solutions associated with airports’
airsides from the wider perspective.
Sergio
kindly accepted my invitation for an interview and felt enthusiastic about
sharing his insightful knowledge related to overcoming existing obstacles that
cross organisational and geographical boundaries. We will be covering the
airside issues in general, as well as those faced by airports in Europe, US,
and Latin America to show the diversity in approaches to improvement in
efficiency and service quality of airport and airline operations.
So,
here we are. I hope you are ready to embark on a journey of discovery of an
area not so simple to grasp, but well worth understanding not only by
operations specialists but by airline and airport leaders and
strategists and also policy makers across the industry.
JR: To start with,
could you explain what are the main obstacles to improvement in airport
operational efficiencies?
SM: Historically,
private airport concessionaires have focused in optimising processes and
procedures within passenger terminals, while failing to touch a
critical, complex and high impact component of their business – the airport apron, commonly referred to as “airside”. The
problem is that most resources currently involved in airside procedures are managed
by numerous players (airlines, ground handlers, airport operator, air traffic
controllers) performing a wide range of complexly interrelated tasks. Although
all such those theoretically pursue a common objective - optimum on-time
performance, clear leadership and ownership of airside operations
are still to be established, under the framework of a commonly agreed modus operandi, which should account for
local/regional aspects while sticking to a clear set of general principles.
JR: This
lack of coordination and collaboration has certainly contributed to growing airport
and system inefficiencies which triggered actions for setting the standards and
guidelines for collaborative decision making at industry level. The resulting concept
- A-CDM (Airport Collaborative Decision Making) was initiated in Europe in 2004
and first deployed at Brussels Airport (2010) and Munich (2017). FAA has its
own similar concept S-CDM (Surface Collaborative Decision Making), and ICAO
adopted the concept and broaden it.
Let’s start
with Eurocontol´s A-CDM born as a result of a joint venture between ACI
Europe, Eurocontrol, International Air Transport Association (IATA) and the
Civil Air Navigation Services Organisation (CANSO). It is said that
A-CDM basically
aims to connect the airspace management optimization carried out by Air Traffic
Flow and Capacity Management Centres (ATFCM) with ground-based services. Initial
results have confirmed that when enhanced by combination of airspace and
airport processes it can result in reduced delays, better predictability and
optimum use of both airspace and airport resources, potentially increasing the capacity
of participating airports. This all sounds very promising. How well are these initiatives embraced by airports
and airlines?
SM: Over the last few years
the whole air transport industry simply fell in love with the collaborative
spirit promoted by A-CDM ‘culture’. It has become a buzz word. There
is no single meeting, conference, seminar or trade show addressing the air
transport industry where A-CDM is not glamorously welcomed as
something being successfully implemented everywhere by everyone. However,
few people actually understand the major cultural/behaviour paradigm shift demanded
by actual implementation of A-CDM operating mode, way beyond sharing
information and promoting enhanced global situational awareness.
What needs to
be understood, sooner rather than later, is that fully transparent information
sharing and optimum level of common situation awareness across the whole
airport community are actually the foundation upon which a wholly new way of
operating an airport must be introduced – the A-CDM Operating Mode. It is fair to say it makes little sense
for an airport to start planning A-CDM introduction prior to engaging a major
effort towards deployment of a robust information sharing platform which, in my
personal view, must include surface surveillance technologies. I truly believe that
the most important airside related information to be shared amongst all
stakeholders, to enable all the beauty of A-CDM, is the real time visual
monitoring of aircraft and vehicles over the airside. The whole set of collaborative applications developed by the
industry to promote enhanced situation awareness at airports is drastically
improved when industry standard surface surveillance technologies are
implemented.
JR: Your
approach to A-CDM obviously adds a practical value to the original theoretical
model.
SM: Well, my proposed approach is not so
much innovative bearing in mind that Eurocontrol clearly states in its A-CDM
Implementation Manual the following:
“Information Sharing is the first
Concept Element, which creates the foundation for all other functions, while
being beneficial in its own right. Therefore, it is essential to implement this
element, before other Airport CDM Concept Elements and functions, in order to
achieve a smooth implementation of the succeeding Concept Elements.”
What it
clearly suggests is that before any long term commitment with the enforcement
of the so called “Best Planned, Best
Served” paradigm, proposed by A-CDM Operating Mode, via TOBTs (Target off-Block Times) and TSATs
(Target Start-up Approval Times), airports
stakeholders do have a homework to do – to deploy solid information sharing/situation
awareness foundation, which then, may or may not lead to full A-CDM
implementation, which requires a complex and time-consuming cultural and
behaviour change. That´s all about sacrificing individual flexibility on behalf
of global availability, balancing on-time performance with predictability concerns.
In short,
what I am particularly convinced is that some type of surface surveillance
technology is a must whenever efficient airside management is to be
pursued, no matter who is in charge of managing aircraft and vehicle
movements within the airside, be it ATC or Apron Control Centre. Surface
surveillance has widely demonstrated its ability to save hours of aircraft taxi
time, reduce fuel consumption and cut CO2 emissions, not to manage improving
passenger experience by drastically raising the level of airport and airlines´
predictability.
All those benefits might be achieved with a combination of:
·
Common-use
Database - known as ACISP (Airport CDM Common Information Sharing Platform)
·
Cooperative
surface surveillance, continuously feeding ACISP with critical real time
information on aircraft and vehicles´ movement within the airside
All the above may (and should) be done prior to enforcing TOBT/TSAT policy to airlines, as that´s most critical
aspect of A-CDM implementation – the reduction of airline´s flexibility in
exchange for higher global availability of airside resources.
Another interesting way to support my statement is to focus on ICAO´s Global Air Navigation Plan (GANP), with
emphasis on two specific Aviation System Block Upgrades (ASBU) - Block 0
(reference date 2013)
- SURF - Basic Advanced Surface Movement Guidance and
Control Systems (A-SMGCS) provides surveillance and alerting of movements of
both aircraft and vehicles at the aerodrome, thus improving runway/aerodrome
safety. Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B) information is used
when available (ADS-B APT).
- A-CDM - Implements collaborative applications that will allow the sharing of surface operations data among the different stakeholders on the airport. This will improve surface traffic management reducing delays on movement and manoeuvring areas and enhance safety, efficiency and situational awareness.
It is an obvious conclusion that, for any airports
raising runway/aerodrome safety
concerns, due to the complexity of its operation, real time position
information should be a part of the ‘surface operations data’ to be
shared amongst stakeholders, as a means to reduce delays on movement and
manoeuvring areas.
JR: Can this
be illustrated by some examples?
SM: To illustrate how it works in real
world, we can mention the results achieved in the US, in particular at Atlanta
International Airport back in 2010, after implementation of a common-use
surface surveillance platform (no formal CDM Operating mode, implemented):
With the
deployment of Saab´s Aerobahn Surface Management System, fed by a ground based multilateration
network in 2010, Atlanta has created a collaborative environment where all
stakeholders (airport, airlines and the FAA) have a common platform to improve
overall airport operations. In 2012, Atlanta saved 36,400 hours in taxi time
and 64,400 hours in schedule delay per year, saving airlines $97 million annually with
delays at their lowest level since measurement began in 1990 (10.1 per thousand
operations). This reflects a 21%
improvement in addition to a 54.7% delay reduction achieved in 2011. Furthermore,
Saab´s surface surveillance platform, with its advanced event alerting
functionality, prevented long on-board delays saving 300,000 passenger days
during those years.
Other
deployments include: Atlanta, Chicago, Denver, Detroit, Houston, Minneapolis,
New York-JFK, New York-LaGuardia, New Newark, Philadelphia and Phoenix. Major
airlines as American Airlines, Delta and United are also prominent
customers/users.
JR: The US
approach seems to be more effective which must be associated with conceptual
differences between A-CDM and S-CDM. If so, what prevents Europeans from
following these steps?
SM: Air Traffic Management in US and Europe have
a number of differences which cause their CDM initiatives, not to be so easily
interchangeable, although both initiatives seek for the same results and
require from airlines and ground handlers, high level of predictability with
regards to flights´ readiness time. The one thing which remains valid for any
and all CDM initiatives is that higher global availability of resources is
achieved as a result of tighter flexibility levels enforced to stakeholders.
One of such major differences is that while in Europe, airside management
is undertaken by Control Tower, through the Air Traffic Controller at the
“ground” operational position (although no “control” service is actually
provided within the Apron), in US, aircraft and vehicles within the Apron are
monitored and supported by the “Apron/Ramp Control Centres” – normally operated by the airport operator itself or
third parties hired for the provision of the service (quite often major
carriers undertake such role at their main hubs.
JR: Let’s
talk about Latin America. How much is it opened for implementation of
A-CDM?
SM:
Two main aspects are to be addressed, with the aim of understanding the challenge
of airside management improve in Latin America:
Historically, airports in Latin America, were
operated by state owned entities, as part of their “mission” (a pretty military
concept). Under such scenario, things as profitability and competitiveness were
not so relevant, as airports existed to provide the community with safe airport
operations.
Airport privatization wave raised a new
scenario, where private/profit driven concessionaries are challenged to
efficiently serve private airlines, which are supported by private ground
handling agents. All of this takes place within a fairly competitive environment,
where airports compete with each other for airlines´ preference. Now, airport
service efficiency directly impacts on airports/airlines´ profitability, which
is their ultimate goal, as private entities.
Under
the new scenario, the need to tear down the frontier between airport and air
traffic control is a must and airside lies right in the centre of the challenge
to be faced by airport stakeholders. It´s important to acknowledge that
aircraft operation within the apron area and around the gates involve the use
of multiple resources – trucks, buses, cars, personnel, gates, etc., in a
physical space not owned by anyone - air traffic controllers provide only
information outside manoeuvring area. In short, Air Traffic Control manages
runways and taxiways and airport concessionaire manages passenger terminal. The
one-million-dollar question is, how to join all stakeholders into a single
coordinated effort to improve the efficiency of airside procedures and that´s
what A-CDM (Airport Collaborative Decision Making) and all other CDM driven
initiatives are all about.
Unfortunately, a number of regional issues have
been dramatically affecting Latin American stakeholders´ ability to properly
assess A-CDM related opportunities and requirements.
It is widely recognized that any A-CDM
initiatives, including preliminary gap analysis, should engage all stakeholders
as of day one. This basic concept has been recognized by all
guiding documents of associations and organizations including ICAO, IATA, ACI, etc. However,
that´s not how things have
happened in Latin America, where individual stakeholders (typically Airport Operator or ANSP) unilaterally decide to develop an A-CDM program. As a rule,
little engagement of those expected to be the
main potential beneficiaries of A-CDM - airlines and ground handlers and that
is precisely in this contradiction which lies the major risk of A-CDM
deployment processes, characterized by unbalanced participation of different
stakeholders.
To make it even worse, as previously highlighted, A-CDM, as well as any
other CDM related operating model is based upon reduction of stakeholders’
flexibility in the booking of resources, as the means to generate higher global
availability levels.
Another point of concern is the fact that, unlike United States and
Europe, where meteorological conditions have led ANSPs (Air Navigation Service
Providers) to deploy ATC Surface Surveillance (A-SMGCS) platforms for safety
reasons at most medium/large airports, Latin
American airports have virtually assumed blind airside operation as a standard,
once no surface surveillance information is available. That dramatically
affects stakeholders´ situation awareness, which makes it even harder for
airlines and ground handlers to reach the level of predictability they need to
seriously candidate for A-CDM implementation.
JR: From airlines’ perspective, planning block times on routes operating
through congested airports and airspace includes complex tradeoffs. Enforcing
such changes at one airport without understanding the consequences on other
parts of airline route network has already been met by their resistance. Could
you explain in more details in which way A-CDM affects this process.
SM: In traditional pre-A-CDM operation, airport
resources are allocated based upon a “first called, first served” policy. That
means airlines (and their ground handling agents) do their best to
eliminate/minimize possible delays with no information exchanged with airport
and ATC, with regards to imminent delays. That causes poor allocation of
airport resources, due to the lack of visibility on predicted readiness time of
each flight.
What A-CDM and its Target Off-Block Time (TOBT) and Target
Start-Up Approval Time (TSAT)
policy enforces is the continuous information exchange between airlines and
airport operators with regards to each flight´s estimated readiness times. That
allows airport operator and ATC to build a realistic
start-up/push-back/taxi/take-off sequence, which proves supported by airport
infrastructure and airspace availability. This is all about operating as fast
as realistically possible while ensuring maximum predictability. The operation
paradigm than changes to “best planned, best served”.
JR: Unhappy
with some of A-CDM rules, European airlines have decided to form an Airline
Airport Collaborative Decision Making Group ('AACG') in 2015 (supported by IATA)
to tackle many unharmonized European A-CDM processes and procedures that added
complexity, and in some cases inefficiencies and delays within airline
operations. This signals that the whole process is still far from being fully
harmonised and implemented in Europe. How long do you think the full
implementation of A-CDM operating model can take?
SM:
If we assume that
stakeholders are going to make a well-informed, joint decision
to collaborate (for duly understood and acknowledged reasons), and
accept the flexibility reduction imposed by A-CDM operating
model and it´s actual implementation, quite optimistically, we are talking
about two years; not to mention radically changing culture and
behaviour of hundreds of thousands of people within the whole airport community...
and beyond (regulatory agents, customs & immigration, etc.).
JR:
There are so many valuable information related to these processes that can help
with better planning and management of airline resources, adjustment of
strategies, and also improve the visibility of reasons for disruptions caused
by service providers. Can it be adjusted for decision making outside of
operational environment? Is such information already available?
SM:
This
information can be provided. In the case of Aerobahn platform, apart from supporting
immediate decision making, it can also provide number of tools required for
post-operational analysis at various organisational levels, from operations
through scheduling, network and strategic planning. This can help with:
• Improving
schedule efficiencies and block time planning
• Maximizing
runway, taxiway and gate/stand utilization
• Decreasing
delays & heightening performance during irregular operations
• Reducing
emissions
• Identifying
trends and recurring operational problems
• Better
forecasting of the impact of future operational events
• Understanding
of usage of airport resources, enabling verification of related fees
• Improving
post-operational analysis leading to automation or process improvements
• Facilitating
long-term planning
JR:
To wrap it up, what would be your message to those unsure about the benefits
that new approach to collaborative decision making at airports can bring to the
industry?
SM: Worldwide, privatization
of airlines and airports is leading the profit driven entities to an obvious
challenge - how to achieve the best cost/benefit ratio out of limited
infrastructures. It is not a coincidence that A-CDM related discussions
are flourishing everywhere, quite often ahead of time and lacking technical
expertise. This seems to be the 21st century stakeholders´ intuitive strive to go
for maximum profitability.
Under the light of such scenario, it becomes
evident that, no matter which specific concept of operations stakeholders
agree to adopt at a given airport, predictability is going to be the key for
success! That is critical for the governance amongst airlines and ground
handlers. As time goes by, airlines will be challenged to share more accurate
information on their readiness times, with the owners of airside and airspace,
at the risk of not counting on essential resources for their operations when
they actually need them. Let's
see where it all goes, as time goes by. At least, I remain absolutely convinced
that collaboration is the way to travel… not the destination!
I would like to thank Sergio
for his insightful views on regulatory and technical aspects of airport collaborative
decision making. The biggest challenge will continue to be the improvement in
communication between people at frontline and between those responsible for
strategic adjustments. These are the places where merging the best of human and
technology capabilities can help with disrupting disruptions while waiting for
the next leap in industry development.
