CATER way forward: Recommendations 19 September 2017, Madrid, Spain CATER Final Workshop CATER way forward: Recommendations Dr Romain Kervarc 19 September 2017, Madrid, Spain

Recommendations and report An entry point for stakeholders and policy makers CATER work allows: Identifying gaps gathering stakeholder feedback and from this, producing recommendations Stakeholders and policy makers have different areas of interest and different priorities and do not seek the same information

Limiting factors Infrastructures: Organisation: Technology: Airports Ground transportation … Organisation: Passenger flow Travel information Technology: Security check Faster planes

Areas of interest for all actors Cost (economic/social/R&I) impact: Airline point of view: if you want to lower delays due to aircraft maintenance, you must schedule your maintenance operations differently and/or increase your fleet or reduce your coverage to be sure to have a plane available Airport point of view: whether you make security control, boarding, connection more efficient, you will have more constraints and their management will have a cost (more staff, more adaptative organisation, …) Policy maker point of view: if you set objectives, local executive bodies may have to make investments (multimodal transportation, new airports…): may they face them reallistically? and are they supported by the population? Safety/Security/Environmental impact: Airline point of view: do tighter schedules have an impact on safety? Airport point of view: how to have quicker controls with same security? Policy maker point of view: more flights mean more carbon…

Report Analysis is related to ACARE goals Analysis may show impact on several stages of the door-to-door model: From Door to Origin Airport At Origin Airport From Gate to Gate At Transit Airport At Destination Airport From Destination Airport to Door Analysis involves four identified factors of efficiency: Speed Frequency Reliability Connectivity

Recommendation Elaboration

Recommendation elaboration: overview Recommendation elaboration process Gap analysis Stakeholder consultation BARRIER: Lack of direct flights STAKEHOLDER FEEDBACK … Infrastructure: . infrastructure is the time limiting factor experts unanimously support develop- ment of inter-modality, connecting small airports other transports IMPACT IDENTIFICATION System: switch from a hub model to a distributed model – modelling abilities Costs: financial sustainability and environmental cost of the change Infrastructure: impact of additional traffic and comparison to intermodal solutions CLASSIFICATION: ACARE goal #1 D2D segment #3 Efficiency factor #4 INTEREST AREAS Do we have the possibility to assess the impact of more direct flights on existing infrastructure capacities? Are we able to compare the benefits of more direct flights with the benefits of approaches including more intermodality? RECOMMENDATION BASIS Impact on existing infrastructure capacities? not much addressed (general focus on hubs), effect on hub congestion not addressed More direct flights vs more intermodality? Projects addressing intermodality based on existing means, no simulation framework, however adaptation to disruption addressed

Recommendation elaboration Barrier identified in Gap analysis Barrier 1: Lack of direct flights between a given airport and the 25 busiest airports in Europe Addressed goal: 90% of travellers within Europe able to complete their journey door-to-door within 4 hours D2D model segment: 3 – From Gate to Gate Efficiency factor: 4 – Connectivity

Classification of impacts: Technology: no direct impact System: one would switch from a hub model to a more distributed model ability of ATM to handle the change (less flights between hubs, more direct flights)? other benefits to be expected: less congestion in major hubs? consequences of creation of new routes (compliance with regulations)? Costs: consequences of the change of model sustainability of the model for airlines? consequences on ticket fares? consequences on airport operation costs? environmental cost: actual assessment of fuel per capita needed in both cases? Infrastructure: impact of additional traffic and comparison to intermodal solutions existing structures sufficient or need for extension? environmental impact (chemical pollution / noise pollution)? benefits compared to increase of intermodality (speedy trains to reach hubs)?

Crossing impacts with stakeholder feedback: Example with infrastructures: Stakeholder feedback: In the experts’ opinion, as compared to the technological and organisational components, it is the infrastructures needed for Goal 1 that will take the longest time to be ready. This could be construed as an indication for the European ATS to invest in this domain most urgently so as to reach the stated objective. Generally on infrastructures, unanimous support for the development of inter-modality, connecting small airports to land or water-based transportation First area of interest for a recommendation: do we have the possibility to assess the impact of more direct flights on existing infrastructure capacities? are we able to compare the benefits of more direct flights with the benefits of approaches including more intermodality?

Crossing areas of interest with the work of other WPs: Example with assessment of FP6/FP7 projects: Impact of more direct flights on existing infrastructure capacities Not much addressed in projects Many projects insist on increasing airport capacity but are rather focus on larger airports / hubs How hub congestion would or would not be relieved by a more distributed model seems not addressed Comparison more direct flights / more intermodality Projects addressing intermodality generally focus on journey planning (e.g. enhanced wisetrip) based on existing means, thus not providing a simulation framework where various scenarios could be tested These projects however suggest that adaptation to disruptions should be taken into account in the assessment

Main barriers identified in gap analysis

Main barriers identified

Main barriers identified

Classification of barriers From Door to Origin Airport At Origin Airport From Gate to Gate At Transit Airport At Destination Airport From Destination Airport to Door Lack of direct flights Aircraft speed Extra time buffers on ground Local ground transport

Stakeholder Feedback

Shorter, more focussed on solutions suggested by previous exercises Year IV Questionnaire Shorter, more focussed on solutions suggested by previous exercises TE enablers and intermodalism in the European ATS: Infrastructure: regional airports, road and rail network Technology: weather forecast/nowcast, ATC automation, SAT-based links Organisation: tactical and strategic CDM

Electronic format questionnaire on the EASN website Distribution Electronic format questionnaire on the EASN website http://www.easn-tis.com/cater-questionnaire/. Estimated time to fill: 15-20 min. E-mail campaigns to the entire CATER Network of R&I experts July-August 2017

High return rate: 115 responses The respondents are very experienced, have diverse backgrounds Average experience in ATS R&I: 17.5 years Most have touched 2 or more ATS R&I fields Experience domains most often mentioned: AST (Aerostructures), ICS (Innovative Concepts and Scenarios), IDV (Integrated Design & Validation (methods & tools)), FLP (Flight Physics), PRO (Propulsion) and AVS (Aircraft Avionics, Systems & Equipment). Least represented: HFA (Human Factors).

Results – Infrastructures 1 Q211 Would you say that building new regional airports all across Europe is…? • Essential/urgent: there are not nearly enough regional airport platforms throughout Europe. • Desirable: the transport connectivity needed can be improved by developing the land transport links as well. • Indifferent: the existing airport platforms in Europe are sufficient.

Results – Infrastructures 2 Q211 – open question Apart from their number and locations, what do you think are essential airport infrastructures missing in Europe to improve TE (e.g. non-conventional platforms for seaplanes or V/STOL aircraft)? A few: “Dedicated or adapted airports for EPATS/P-planes, seaplanes, V/STOL.” Many comments: “The flight time per se is not the most TE-costly part; airports should accelerate security checks, airplane access, boarding-disembarking.”; ”New airports’ locations should be carefully planned wrt. (densified) ground transport network.” A few: “Need to reduce the environmental impact of air travel.”

Results – Infrastructures 3 Q212 Would you say that the European airport-to-airport and airport-to-city land transport network shall be…? • Developed and improved, especially the rail segment. • Developed and improved, especially the road segment. • Left as it is, just modernise the vehicles and increase the connection frequencies

Results – Technology 1 Q221 Would you say that today’s European ATS’ weather forecast/now-cast systems…? • Cannot meaningfully be improved on their own, better use of their data suffices. • Can and should be improved in terms of accuracy. • Can and should be improved in terms of frequency. • Can and should be improved in terms of resolution.

Results – Technology2 Would you say that ATC automation…? Q222 Would you say that ATC automation…? • Must be implemented mainly on ground systems (automated trajectory design). • Must be implemented mainly on-board (automated datalink-transmitted orders execution). • Must include both the ground and board systems. • Should progress, in the long term, toward pilot-less aircraft. • Should progress, in the long term, toward fully automated ATC. • Is not needed in order to reach ACARE’s TE objectives.

Coordinating Air transport Time Efficiency Research Madrid- 19/09/2017 Results – Technology 3 Q223 Would you say that the development and integration of SAT-based links …? • Is not needed in order to reach ACARE’s TE objectives. • Is needed to reach ACARE’s TE objectives in most of Europe. • Is needed to reach ACARE’s TE objectives in a few European countries. • Should include seaplanes. • Should include V/STOL aircraft. • Should include remote-pilot taxi aircraft (“P-planes”). Coordinating Air transport Time Efficiency Research Madrid- 19/09/2017

Main conclusions

Conclusion and perspectives Need for quantitative impact assessment, i.e. simulation means / models for: Passenger flows in airports Various aspects of intermodality As evidenced in the tech watch, only partial models exist for intermodality but the issue starts to be addressed for passenger flows Per domain: Technology: not a major limiting factor, strong case for automation Organisation: very qualitative answers, need for quantitative measures Infrastructure: a strong impact of policy, infrastructural investment, and governance is identified

CATER final recommendations

Thanks for your attention! ONERA – the French Aerospace Lab Dr. Romain Kervarc ONERA – the French Aerospace Lab