Air traffic control policy framework advancements vis-à-vis regional airports

Introduction

Economic, social and territorial cohesion is one of the EU’s main objectives. Many smaller communities and remote regions (e.g. Azores) rely on air services for a variety of purposes like access to core regions. Policymakers have understood the contribution of air connectivity to economic growth and therefore subsidise ‘non-commercial’ routes to remote regions. Air transport may be the only means of transport in remote and outmost regions, thus providing social inclusion and access to social services (Efthymiou and Papatheodorou, 2015). Around 45 per cent of Norway and 35 per cent of Greece are considered predominantly rural remote (PRR) and 45 per cent of Ireland and Poland and 43 per cent of Finland are predominantly rural close (PRC) to city regions (Brezzi et al., 2011). In Europe, many countries have poor road and rail infrastructure to certain regions due to geomorphology or weather conditions. The high number of inhabited islands in Greece make impossible the development of rail and road infrastructure to those islands, where communities are suffering from geographical discontinuity (Efthymiou and Papatheodorou, 2015) and thus depend more on marine and air transport. Moreover, the awkward geography of a country and sparse population (e.g. in Norway) can increase the reliance of the population on air transport (Lian, 2010). Thus, the connectivity of remote and core regions in many cases cannot be achieved with road or rail transportation, and emphasis has been given to air transport in the form of public service obligations (PSOs) in many cases.

Moreover, the air transport network is expanding from the established hub and spoke. Spatial and temporal concentration fuelled the hub-and-spoke networks used by full-service network carriers (FSNCs) (Reynolds-Feighan, 2001; O’Connell, 2011; Efthymiou et al., 2019). The appearance oflow-cost carriers (LCCs) that offer low fares and point-to-point connections has transformed air travel (Efthymiou and Papatheodorou, 2018a). Increased connectivity has contributed to the discovery of new destinations (e.g. Kos island) but also the rejuvenation of old ones (e.g. Majorca). This traffic, which is vital and benefits local communities, relies hugely on preserving those flights and keeping the costs for the aircraft operators and the passenger fares low. In conclusion, aviation contributes to tourism development (Corbet et al., 2019; Warnock-Smith and O’Connell, 2011; Papatheodorou, 2002), generating economic growth and providing jobs in peripheral regions, so the air transport system is vital for those regions.

The main components of the air transport system are airlines, airports and air navigation service providers (ANSPs) (Efthymiou et al, 2016). Remote regions are served primarily by regional airlines, which are not recognised by all analysts as a separate business model and are affiliated with FSNCs. Regional airlines feed traffic to hubs or offer stand-alone, point-to-point services on routes that could not be profitably served by FSNCs or LCCs whose fleet structure was unsuitable for certain smaller-scale operations (Efthymiou and Papatheodorou, 2018a). The routes that they operate are usually thin and from airports that are located in regions that do not have easy road/rail access to primary/hub airports. Definitions of airport types vary, especially for secondary airports. Wong et al. (2019) classify airport types according to topological features (such as degree and centralities), importance to regional traffic and spillover effect from neighbouring airport(s). Dobruszkes et al. (2017) define regional airports as airports not serving (or at least not primarily serving) large cities (e.g., Shannon Airport in Ireland). For this case, we look at secondary/regional airports with thin traffic and high costs.

Airlines and airports rely on the air navigation service providers (ANSPs) for the management of air traffic. Hence and as discussed earlier, air navigation services (ANS) provision is significant for remote regions. The five biggest ANSPs (DFS for Germany, DSNA for France, ENAIRE for Spain, ENAV for Italy and NATS for the UK) operate 54 per cent of European traffic. More than 47 per cent of the European airports lose money (ACI Europe, 2019). Out of the 500 airports in Europe, more than 270 (depending on the definition of regional airports) have fewer than one million passengers (Verouden, 2013) and do not generate any profit. Therefore, the traffic is not equally distributed among the ANSPs and the airports. This proves that the ATC cost in small regional airports is higher and based on the full cost recovery principle, and the charges could be higher for aircraft operators in the smaller airports. This puts extra pricing pressure on airlines, airports and passengers.

Despite Europe’s being one of the most mature markets and its having one of the busiest skies in the world with as many as 33,000 flights a day (EC, 2015), the airspace fragmentation is blamed for longer flight routes, delays, environmental and safety inefficiencies and higher costs for aircraft operators and passengers (Efthymiou and Papatheodorou, 2018b). This fragmentation led to technical and operational inefficiencies costing four billion euros a year (EC, 2015). When this cost is broken down into sectors or into terminal and en-route services, the cost in remote regions is higher, due to thinner traffic.

This chapter discusses the air traffic control policy framework in Europe and its relation to regional airports. The following section discusses the structure of the air traffic control market in Europe. The next section elaborates on the policy framework and more specifically on the Single European Sky (SES) policy that aimed to reshape the airspace and make the ANSPs more efficient. The innovations that affect regional airports and remote areas are then discussed. The final section concludes the chapter and provides recommendations to policymakers.