ADR in aviation: European and national perspectives

The air transport sector generates the largest share of cross-border consumer complaints, as a proportion of complaints received by the ECC-Net. Since the foundation of the ECC-Net in 2005, air passenger claims have made up around one fifth of the total caseload most years. A pan-European framework of bodies that handle consumer to business disputes will be implemented through the consumer ADR directive.4 Taking these developments into consideration, the aviation industry is an interesting sector to study. This paper looks at dispute resolution for air passengers in the United Kingdom (UK) and Germany, as well as at European level.

The challenge of managing airline delay costs

Estimates of airline delay costs as a function of delay magnitude are combined with fuel and (future) emissions charges to make cost-benefit trade-offs in the pre-departure and airborne phases. Hypothetical scenarios for the distribution of flow management slots are explored in terms of their cost and target-setting implications. The general superiority of passenger-centric metrics is of significance for delay measurement, although flight delays are still the only commonly-reported type of metric in both the US and Europe. There is a particular need for further research into reactionary (network) effects, especially with regard to passenger metrics and flow management delay.

A framework for evaluating the European airline costs of disabled persons and persons with reduced mobility

In recent years, airlines have been servicing a greater variety, and increasing numbers, of disabled persons and persons with reduced mobility (PRMs), particularly associated with ageing, obesity and medical needs. With the quantity of PRMs likely to increase in the future, there will be a growing impact on the airlines' associated actual and opportunity costs, about which there is minimal literature and data. Therefore the aim of this paper is to identify standard functional key factors (FKFs) with which airlines could audit their PRMs costs, and which could be used by other interested bodies, such as governments, when considering relevant aviation policy. These FKFs are related to nine areas, namely PRMs’ transfers; mobility aids; aircraft delays/diversions costs; staff training costs; staff health, safety and welfare; aircraft fixtures and equipment costs; airport costs; transaction costs; and opportunity costs. Further research is needed to obtain the data for these FKFs.

The paradox of competition for airline passengers with reduced mobility (PRM)

Airline competition with customer service as product differentiator has forced down costs, air fares and investor returns. Two passenger markets operate in aviation: (a) able-bodied passengers for whom airlines compete and (b) passengers with reduced mobility (PRMs) – disabled by age, obesity or medical problems – for whom airlines do not compete. Government interference in the market intended to protect a minority of narrowly-defined PRMs has had unintended consequences of enabling increasing numbers of more widely-defined PRMs to access complimentary airline provisions. With growing ageing and overweight populations and long-haul travelling medical tourists such regulation could lead to even lower investors’ returns. The International Air Transport Association (IATA) (2013) examined the air transport value chain for competitiveness using Porter’s (2008) five forces but did not distinguish between able-bodied passengers and PRMs. Findings during an investigation of these two markets concurred with IATA-Porter that the markets for the bargaining powers of PRM buyers and PRM suppliers were highly competitive. However, in contrast to the IATA conclusions, intensity of competition, and threats from new entrants and substitute products for PRM travel were low. The conclusion is that airlines are strategically PRM defensive by omission. Paradoxically, the airline which delivers the best PRM customer service could become the least profitable.

The paradox of competition for airline passengers with reduced mobility (PRM)

Airline competition with customer service as product differentiator has forced down costs, air fares and investor returns. Two passenger markets operate in aviation: (1) able-bodied passengers for whom airlines openly compete and (2) passengers with reduced mobility (PRMs) – disabled by age, obesity or medical problems – for whom airlines do not compete. Government interference in the market intended to protect a minority of narrowly-defined PRMs has had unintended consequences of enabling increasing numbers of more widely-defined PRMs to access complimentary airline provisions. With growing ageing and overweight populations and long-haul travelling medical tourists such regulation could lead to even lower investors’ returns. The International Air Transport Association (IATA) (2013) examined the air transport value chain for competitiveness using Porter’s (2008) five forces but did not distinguish between able-bodied passengers and PRMs. Findings during an investigation of these two markets concurred with IATA-Porter that the markets for the bargaining powers of PRM customers and PRM suppliers were ‘highly competitive’. However, in contrast to the IATA conclusions the threats posed by new entrants, substitute products and intensity of competition for PRM passengers were all ‘low’. The conclusion is that airlines are strategically PRM defensive by omission. Paradoxically, the airline which delivers the best PRM customer service could become the least profitable.

Requirements, Issues, and Challenges for Sense and Avoid in Unmanned Aircraft Systems

The sense and avoid capability is one of the greatest challenges that has to be addressed to safely integrate unmanned aircraft systems into civil and nonsegregated airspace. This paper gives a review of existing regulations, recommended practices, and standards in sense and avoid for unmanned aircraft systems. Gaps and issues are identified, as are the different factors that are likely to affect actual sense and avoid requirements. It is found that the operational environment (flight altitude, meteorological conditions, and class of airspace) plays an important role when determining the type of flying hazards that the unmanned aircraft system might encounter. In addition, the automation level and the data-link architecture of the unmanned aircraft system are key factors that will definitely determine the sense and avoid system requirements. Tactical unmanned aircraft, performing similar missions to general aviation, are found to be the most challenging systems from an sense and avoid point of view, and further research and development efforts are still needed before their seamless integration into nonsegregated airspace

Departure and approach procedures for unmanned aircraft systems in a visual-flight-rule environment

This paper assesses the departure and approach operations of unmanned aircraft systems in one of the most challenging scenarios: flying under visual flight rules. Inspired by some existing procedures for (manned) general aviation, some automatic and predefined procedures for unmanned aircraft systems are proposed. Hence, standardized paths to specific waypoints close to the airport are defined for departure operations, just before starting the navigation phase. Conversely, and for the approach maneuvers, a first integration into a holding pattern near the landing runway (ideally, above it) is foreseen, followed by a standard visual-flight-rule airfield traffic pattern. This paper discuses the advantages of these operations, which aim to minimize possible conflicts with other existing aircraft while reducing the pilot-in-command workload. Finally, some preliminary simulations are shown in which these procedures have been successfully tested with simulated surrounding traffic.