GDP - Time has come for airlines to do get involved, in Latin America !
Over the past five years, I have had extensive and enlightening discussions, with air traffic management experts from around the world. It has been a pretty exciting experience, indeed. I risk to say that′s what keeps me in action, when I could be actually enjoying my well-earned definite retirement !
I ended up becoming nothing but an Air Traffic Controller, who burst the bubble, traveled the world and had the opportunity to learn how ATM concepts were originally proposed (by ICAO) and adopted in different regions, such as Europe (by Eurocontrol) and USA (by the FAA).
But most importantly - I have not abandoned my Latin roots and my focus on understanding our operational/cultural environment and searching for solutions to our specific needs and possibilities.
I do appreciate how hard it is, for brilliant ATM specialists from abroad, to understand how air transport is handled in Latin America. Paraphrasing a common expression, used in the airport world, "if you have seen a region, you have seen one region" !
All this being said, let′s get into the essence of this Article - why it′s time for airlines to trigger a serious debate on GDP (Ground Delay Program), in Latin America.
Airlines have been driven by a justifiable need for continuous growth in air transport activity, supported by a finite infrastructure (airspace/airport) and subject to an obsession which is as understandable as it is utopian - absolute on-time performance (no matter how it is measured).
Nevertheless, given that the laws of physics are indisputable, we have been forced to gradually incorporate an increasing level of unavoidable congestion into standard “flight times”.
The end result of this, especially for short-haul operations, is that standard flight times have been inflated, to accommodate inevitable inefficiencies - large takeoff cues and predictable airborne holdings.
All of this, cautiously developed to give the appearance of fulfilling the on-time performance commitment, in the face of an infrastructure, which turns increasingly (and inevitably) inefficient, mainly at peak times. We are all used to be airborne for 35 minutes, in 70-minute flights.
All of this could possibly work well, but there is always a "but" and in this case, the "but" is simply killing air transport financial sustainability - and I am sure airline CFOs see what I mean!
Taking into account that fuel costs are the main culprit, in the financial viability of airline operations, by inflating flight times to ensure on-time performance feeling, air operations are becoming financially unsustainable.
Lengthy takeoff-cues and time-consuming airborne holdings, produce additional costs, which simply don′t help passengers to get to their destinations any earlier. Not to mention the environmental impact issue.?
Back in 2012, ICAO has proposed the Collaborative Air Traffic Flow Management concept (commonly referred to as CDM operation), which proposed that "unavoidable delays, arising from excessive demand, were planned with aircraft on the ground - engines off" - the GDP (Ground Delay Program). ?
Delay departures? NOT AT ALL, said Latin America, while GDP was adopted in Europe and USA.
Well, twelve years have gone and here we are, struggling to sustain the on-time performance commitment, with airspace & airport getting crowded and fuel costs threatening airlines′ financial survival... and wait to see the cost of SAF (Sustainable Aviation Fuels) !
By artificially inflating flight times, in an attempt to sustain the on-time performance promise, we simply increase fuel burn to the same proportion. And who, if not the airlines burn fuel ?
It′s time for airlines to call for serious GDP discussions !
Saab