The ITACA project started by identifying the main barriers for ATM technology adoption, which include: the complex implementation requirements in the aviation industry, the high cost of investment on the adopter side (e.g. ANSPs), the fragmentation of the market, and a culture which is reluctant to change.
ITACA then identified a number of policy measures aimed at tackling the identified barriers. Examples of the proposed measures are:
- Cost-plus pricing: ANSPs that have implemented certain technologies are allowed to charge an increased rate to the airspace users;
- Best-equipped best-served: ANSPs are allowed to provide a premium service to airlines using a particular technology;
- Subsidies: financial aid for the adopters;
- Mandates: sanctions on agents not implementing the technologies.
To enable a comprehensive impact assessment of the proposed policies, ITACA developed an agent‑based model that reproduces the ATM stakeholders’ decisions and interactions that drive the adoption of new technologies. The model includes the main stakeholders of the ATM ecosystem: regulatory bodies, technology providers, ANSPs, airlines and airports. To understand the behavioural drivers of ATM stakeholders (motivations, concerns, etc.) and calibrate the proposed model, ITACA performed a set of participatory simulation experiments with representatives of different ATM stakeholders, including airports, airlines and ANSPs. The results of these experiments were used to inform the behavioural assumptions of the model and confirm that the model behaves in a realistic manner.
Finally, once the model was validated, it was used to test different combinations of technologies and policy measures. First, ITACA investigated why some past technologies achieved high acceptance rates while others failed to live up to the expectations, and whether certain policy measures could have led to a different outcome. Then, the model was used to forecast the adoption of a set of new solutions under different policy scenarios. The results of these experiments led to the following conclusions:
- The need for a smart combination of policies: a combination of economic incentives (e.g. cost-plus pricing, subsidies) and enforcement through mandates provides the best results.
- The heterogeneous impact of a policy across stakeholders may lead to worse results than a do-nothing policy. A clear example is the best-equipped best-served policy: while it provides the right incentives for airlines, it can be detrimental for ANSPs.
- The importance of regulating ANSPs charges: the natural monopoly of ATM could lead to prohibitively large charges on airlines. However, a strict limitation may prevent ANSPs from recovering the cost of the investment.
- Enforcement works: a mandate for a proven technology can be a welfare improving solution, by reducing the uncertainty in a fractured and competitive market.
- Flexible charging regulation deserves consideration: the cost-plus pricing policy can provide significant benefits, especially combined with other policies such as best-equipped best-served or subsidies.
- There is no one-size-fits-all solution: if the technology is already delivering clear benefits, economic incentives will suffice to obtain the desired uptake.
- The importance of rigorous cost-benefit analysis: the outcome of a certain combination of policies is highly sensitive to the benefits and costs of the technology under study.
- The ‘master key’ stakeholder: when the main investor is not the main beneficiary, policies should focus on accelerating the adoption by this key stakeholder.
