{"id":585,"date":"2016-05-10T09:04:00","date_gmt":"2016-05-10T07:04:00","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.aviationadvocacy.aero\/blog\/?p=585"},"modified":"2019-07-23T11:46:09","modified_gmt":"2019-07-23T09:46:09","slug":"pot-kettle-black","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.aviationadvocacy.aero\/blog\/?p=585","title":{"rendered":"Pot. Kettle. Black."},"content":{"rendered":"Last month saw the release of a <a href=\"http:\/\/www.iata.org\/policy\/promoting-aviation\/Documents\/european-airspace-modernization.pdf\">report<\/a> commissioned by IATA on the economic benefits of modernising European airspace. It estimates total benefits worth between \u20ac126 billion and \u20ac245 billion by 2035. (Incidentally, a <a href=\"http:\/\/www.sesarju.eu\/sites\/default\/files\/documents\/reports\/SESAR-macrostudy-full.pdf?issuusl=ignore\">2011 report<\/a> in by the consultancy McKinsey put the benefits at \u20ac419 billion by 2030 alone. Have the delays in implementing the Single European Sky (SES) already wiped out \u20ac200 billion of benefits?)\r\n\r\nThe purpose of this report is discussed in this month\u2019s <a href=\"http:\/\/www.aviationadvocacy.aero\/index.php\/market-intelligence\/aviation-intelligence-reporter\"><em>Aviation Intelligence Reporter<\/em><\/a>. Think winning hearts and minds. Or rather, bribing hearts and wallets. It is an attempt to persuade member states of the importance of implementing the SES as soon as possible.\u00a0The Commission, for too long the misplaced target of the airlines\u2019 ire, must also engage\u00a0in winning hearts and minds. For the current SES packages to succeed, ANSPs and member states need to be persuaded that there is something in it for them\r\n\r\nThere is one issue in this report that is worth further discussion. <!--more-->That is, that the \u20ac126 billion or \u20ac245 billion figure &#8211; the exact figure depends on the approach used to estimate the benefits &#8211; is gross. It does not take into account the cost of implementing the airspace reforms.\r\n\r\nThe cost of developing and implementing the SES will likely run into many billions of dollars. The SES\u2019s technological programme, SESAR, is estimated to cost at least \u20ac30 billion. Then there\u2019s the cost of all the to-ing and fro-ing at both Eurocontrol and the European Commission.\r\n\r\nNot that airlines need to worry too much about that. Much of the funding for the SES programmes comes from the member states through the European Commission. To be fair, the airlines will also be contributing. This includes retrofitting their aircraft with the new technology. But they are also one of the main beneficiaries of a modernised European airspace. Take the \u20ac126 billion figure, for example, which includes benefits in the form of airline cost savings, shorter routings, fewer delays, more routes and higher flight frequencies.\r\n\r\nIn effect, the cost of the SES is being largely socialised but many of the benefits are privatised. We\u2019re not saying that\u2019s necessarily a bad thing. It just reinforces the hypocrisy of the airline industry \u2013 anyone remember those allegations about <a href=\"http:\/\/www.aviationadvocacy.aero\/blog\/?p=261\">unfair subsidies for Gulf carriers<\/a>?","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Last month saw the release of a report commissioned by IATA on the economic benefits of modernising European airspace. It estimates total benefits worth between \u20ac126 billion and \u20ac245 billion by 2035. (Incidentally, a 2011 report in by the consultancy McKinsey put the benefits at \u20ac419 billion by 2030 alone. Have the delays in implementing [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[13,15],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-585","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-air-traffic-management","category-airlines"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.aviationadvocacy.aero\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/585","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.aviationadvocacy.aero\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.aviationadvocacy.aero\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.aviationadvocacy.aero\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.aviationadvocacy.aero\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=585"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/www.aviationadvocacy.aero\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/585\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":589,"href":"https:\/\/www.aviationadvocacy.aero\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/585\/revisions\/589"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.aviationadvocacy.aero\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=585"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.aviationadvocacy.aero\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=585"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.aviationadvocacy.aero\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=585"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}