Author Archives: admin

  • 0


What happened?

On a normal (passenger) crew change flight in an AW169 helicopter, crew noticed a “1-2 AHRS FAIL” caution displayed in the crew alert system shortly after departure from the offshore installation.  With this caution message, electronic helicopter heading information was completely lost.

What went wrong?  What were the causes?

After disembarking, the passengers were asked if they had any ferrous or magnetic parts in their luggage, which was initially denied.  After becoming aware of certain products possibly containing magnets, one of the passengers realized and admitted that he had two medium size stereo speakers in his luggage.

The cause of the instrument failure was found to be due to the presence of magnetic elements (speakers) in the luggage hold.

In bad weather conditions, navigation errors due to loss of orientation could have resulted in a far more serious outcome.

What actions were taken?

  • The helicopter equipment involved in the occurrence was checked for damages and for correct function. No damage nor discrepancies were found; the helicopter was released for service;
  • Check-in personnel now inform passengers that stereo speakers are not permitted on board helicopters;
  • Check-in personnel now inform passengers that stereo speakers are not permitted on board helicopters;
  • Check-in personnel make random checks of passengers’ luggage (as approved by customer/passenger) for items not to be transported onboard helicopters;

What lessons were learned?

  • There is poor awareness amongst helicopter passengers as to what could constitute hazardous goods; information on such potentially hazardous items needs to be made more readily available;
  • Offshore facilities (helicopter departure lounges) are not displaying adequate lists or images of items which are not permitted on board helicopters; this needs to be addressed and rectified.

  • 0

Vistara becomes eligible for International Ops; receives 21st Aircraft

The airline has received its new aircraft an Airbus A320neo powered by CFM engines. Present regulations mandate a domestic airline to have a minimum of 20 aircraft to apply for international flight rights.

Vistara becomes eligible for international ops; receives 21st aircraft

The new aircraft will be deployed to further strengthen its domestic network. Full service air carrier Vistara on Thursday said that it has becomes eligible to start International operations with the addition of its 21st aircraft.

The airline has received its new aircraft an Airbus A320neo powered by CFM engines. Present regulations mandate a domestic airline to have a minimum of 20 aircraft to apply for international flight rights.

According to the company, the new aircraft will be deployed to further strengthen its domestic network.

“There`s great excitement amongst all of us at Vistara, as we prepare ourselves for taking the next leap in our journey to fly International,” Vistara CEO Leslie Thng was quoted as saying in a statement.

“The arrival of our 21st aircraft makes this phase even more special. It enables us to strengthen our network further, which gives us the opportunity to offer more choices in terms of frequencies to our ever-growing base of loyal customers.”

Vistara commenced its commercial operations on January 9, 2015. Till date it has flown over 9 million passengers, and currently serves 22 destinations with over 800 flights a week.

The company — TATA SIA Airlines — known by its brand name Vistara, is a joint venture between Tata Sons and Singapore Airlines Limited (SIA) with Tata Sons holding the majority stake of 51 per cent in the company and SIA holding the remaining 49 per cent.

  • 0

Call-sign Confusion



The use of similar call signs by aircraft operating in the same area and especially on the same RTF frequency often gives rise to potential and actual flight safety incidents. This hazard is usually referred to as “call sign confusion”.

The following are some examples of the more common causes for call sign confusion:

  • Airlines allocate commercial flight numbers as call-signs; these are normally consecutive and therefore similar (e.g. RUSHAIR 1431, RUSHAIR 1432, etc.)
  • Airlines schedule flights with similar call signs to be in the same airspace at the same time.
  • Call signs coincidentally contain the same alphanumeric characters in a different order (e.g. AB1234 and BA 2314).
  • Call signs contain repeated digits (e.g. RUSHAIR 555).
  • Alpha-numeric call signs end in two letters which correspond to the last two letters of the destination’s ICAO location indicator (e.g. RUSHAIR 25LL for a flight inbound to London Heathrow);


Loss of Communication, Loss of separation, level bust, AIRPROX, or midair collision.


Many larger airlines operate call sign de-confliction programmes. These involve reviewing company call signs to ensure that aircraft with similar call signs are not likely to be routinely in the same airspace at the same time, and a process to systemmatically resolve ongoing issues arising from reports of similar call signs from their flight crew, ANSPs or other operators.

Typical Scenarios

An aircraft receives and acts on a clearance intended for another aircraft, in consequence of which:

  • The aircraft takes up a heading or routing intended for the other; or,
  • The aircraft commences a climb or descent to a level to which it has not been cleared; or,
  • The aircraft departs the RTF frequency; or,
  • In responding to the message, the aircraft blocks a transmission from the intended recipient; or,
  • The intended recipient does not receive the clearance, and fails to take up the desired heading or routing, or fails to climb or descent to the desired level; or,
  • The workload of ATCOs and pilots is increased due to the necessity to resolve the confusion.

Contributory Factors

  • Failure of operator to give sufficient consideration in allocation of RTF call signs.
  • Pilot Workload.
  • ATCO Workload.
  • Interruption or Distraction.
  • High Rates of Climb or Descent.
  • Level Bust in Holding Patterns.
  • Airspace and Procedure Design.
  • Density of traffic.


  • Larger Operators with high flight densities in particular airspace should consider routinely using a combination of numeric and alphanumeric call sign formats.
  • Observe the following guidance in selecting call signs (see also link for EUROCONTROL Call Sign Similarity Service in the Further Reading section):
    • Avoid the use of similar call signs within the company;
    • Where practicable, proactively co-ordinate with other operators to minimise similar numeric and alphanumeric elements of call signs;
    • Avoid call signs with a four-number sequence; all-numeric callsigns should be limited to a maximum of three dugits;
    • Do not use the same digit repeated moe than once (e.g. RUSHAIR 555);
    • If letter suffixes are to be used with a preceeding number sequence, limit the full string to a maximum of four alphanumeric components and, to the extent possible, coordinate letter combinations with other airspace and airport users;
    • Do not use alphanumeric call signs which have their last two letters as the destination’s ICAO location indicator (e.g. RUSHAIR 25LL for a flight inbound to London Heathrow);
    • Where the total number of flights operated is large, it is likely to be best to use a combination of wholly some numeric and some alphanumeric callsigns rather than all numeric or all alphanumeric;
    • If similarly-numbered call signs are unavoidable within a company, allow a significant time (at least 3 hours at any shared-use vicinity) and/or geographical split between aircraft using them;
    • If it is considered that useful capacity in the allocation of call signs has been reached, then consider applying for and using a second company call sign designator;
    • Do not use similar/reversed digits/letters in alphanumeric call-signs (e.g. RUSHAIR 87MB and RUSHAIR 78BM).
    • For short haul flights, avoid using number sequences for particular routes which begin the day with ..01 and then continue sequentially through the day.
  • Employ a call sign de-confliction programme.
  • Some countries impose additional call sign requirements to reduce the risk of confusion. For instance, the FAA require that the following criteria are met if a call sign is to be authorized in the NAS (National Airspace System):
    • The combination of call sign designator and flight number must not exceed 7 alphanumeric characters;
    • To avoid similar or same call sign confusion, the call sign designator letters must immediately be followed in sequence only by the numerals of the flight number;
    • No additional letters of the alphabet are permitted after the call sign designator (except for the bullet below);
    • For operational purposes, Part 121 and Part 135 scheduled aircraft operators may use a letter as the final character of the aircraft identification as long as it is preceded by a numeral (i.e., AAL351A);

Examples of FAA acceptable call sign designators with flight number: MDSTRl, RDDL172, ABX91, AAL351A and SWA2604.

Examples of FAA unacceptable call sign designators with flight number: RDDL1720 (more than seven characters), NEWS42G (additional alphabet letter used for non-scheduled operator), BKA16CH (two alphabet letters), and LBQ17523 (more than seven characters).

Accidents and Incidents

The following events include Call Sign Confusion as a contributory factor:

  • B190 / B190, Auckland NZ, 2007 (On 1 August 2007, the crew of a Beech 1900 aircraft holding on an angled taxiway at Auckland International Airport mistakenly accepted the take-off clearance for another Beech 1900 that was waiting on the runway and which had a somewhat similar call sign. The pilots of both aircraft read back the clearance. The aerodrome controller heard, but did not react to, the crossed transmissions. The holding aircraft entered the runway in front of the cleared aircraft, which had commenced its take-off. The pilots of both aircraft took avoiding action and stopped on the runway without any damage or injury.)
  • A333 / A319, en-route, east of Lashio Myanmar, 2017 (On 3 May 2017, an Airbus A330 and an Airbus A319 lost prescribed separation whilst tracking in opposite directions on a radar-controlled ATS route in eastern Myanmar close to the Chinese border. The Investigation found that the response of the A330 crew to a call for another aircraft went undetected and they descended to the same level as the A319 with the lost separation only being mitigated by intervention from the neighbouring Chinese ACC which was able to give the A319 an avoiding action turn. At the time of the conflict, the A330 had disappeared from the controlling ACCs radar.)
  • B738/A319 en-route, south east of Zurich Switzerland, 2013 (On 12 April 2013, a Ryanair Boeing 737-800 took a climb clearance intended for another Ryanair aircraft on the same frequency. The aircraft for which the clearance was intended did not respond and the controller did not notice that the clearance readback had come from a different aircraft. Once the wrong aircraft began to climb, from FL360 to FL380, a TCAS RA to descend occurred due to traffic just transferred to a different frequency and at FL370. That traffic received a TCAS RA to climb. STCA was activated at the ATS Unit controlling both Ryanair aircraft.)
  • B738/B738, vicinity Oslo Norway, 2012 (On 31 October 2012, a Boeing 737-800 on go around after delaying the breaking off of a fast and high unstable ILS approach at Oslo lost separation in IMC against another aircraft of the same type and Operator which had just taken off from the same runway as the landing was intended to be made on. The situation was aggravated by both aircraft responding to a de-confliction turn given to the aircraft on go around. Minimum separation was 0.2nm horizontally when 500 feet apart vertically, both climbing. Standard missed approach and departure tracks were the same.)
  • AT43/A346, Zurich Switzerland, 2010 (On 18 June 2010, an ATR 42 began a daylight take off on runway 28 at Zurich without ATC clearance at the same time as an A340 began take off from intersecting runway 16 with an ATC clearance. ATC were unaware of this until alerted to the situation by the crew of another aircraft which was waiting to take off from runway 28, after which the ATR 42 was immediately instructed to stop and did so prior to the runway intersection whilst the A340 continued departure on runway 16 .)

  • 1

SpiceJet Flight “Inadvertently” Crosses Runway , Almost Collides With Aircraft In Varanasi

Two SpiceJet pilots operating a Varanasi to Hyderabad flight this morning were grounded, confirmed a spokesperson of the airline.

NEW DELHI: An alert by Varanasi airport Air Traffic Controller or ATC prevented two aircraft from coming on a collision course at the runway on Tuesday,12 June 2018 following which one of the airlines grounded two of its pilots.

Two SpiceJet pilots operating a Varanasi to Hyderabad flight this morning were grounded, confirmed a spokesperson of the airline.

The incident occurred when an IndiGo aircraft with 178 passengers onboard was about to take off for Mumbai. The ATC had asked the SpiceJet flight to remain at the holding point till the IndiGo plane took off, airport sources said.

However, according to the SpiceJet spokesperson, the aircraft while taxing to the runway “inadvertently” crossed the runway holding point.

Noticing the incursion, the ATC immediately alerted the IndiGo plane, which aborted take off, the sources said.

The matter has been referred to the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA), IndiGo said.

“IndiGo aircraft operating 3175 (Varanasi -Mumbai) in spite of having ATC clearance had to abort the takeoff at a low speed because the aircraft of another carrier came on the runway. IndiGo cockpit crew followed standard operating procedures in compliance with the ATC instructions. IndiGo has voluntarily reported the matter to the DGCA,” the airline said in a statement.

SpiceJet, in a statement, said, “On 12th June 2018, SpiceJet Boeing 737 800 aircraft  was scheduled to operate SG-705 , sector Varanasi-Hyderabad. At Varanasi while taxing to the runway the aircraft inadvertently crossed the runway holding point.”

“The ATC asked the pilot to hold position and later cleared it for take off,” SpiceJet said.

  • 0


Industry financial performance improved in Q1 2018, driven by European airlines



Despite the ongoing pressure on airline equities, the latest financial results from Q1  2018 have continued to point to a pick-up in industry-wide financial performance  relative to the same period a year ago.

The EBIT margin in our sample of 73 airlines  rose to 5.7%, from 4.7% a year ago.   The improvement at an industry level was  driven by a pick-up in performance in Europe (despite the first  quarter of the year  being a seasonally weak period  for European airline profitability), alongside  stronger showings from airlines based in Latin America and parts of the Middle East.

Our sample of 45 airlines indicates that free cash flow also improved at an  industry-wide level in Q1 2018 compared to the same period a year ago (to 3.8% of  revenues, up from 1.1% a year ago).

This outcome mainly reflected an increase in net cash flow from operations (to 18.4%  of revenue in our sample, from 15.4%), offset by a 0.4 percentage point pick-up in capex spending (to 14.6%).

The industry-wide estimate masked a range in performance at the regional level. European airline free cash flow declined in annual terms following a sharp pick-up in capital investment, while airlines in Asia Pacific saw a moderate decline in net cash
flow generation in the quarter relative to Q1 2017.


  • 0

GoAir Kolkata-Port Blair flights suffers bird hit, returns safely to Kolkata

New Delhi: GoAir’s Kolkata-Port Blair flight suffered a bird hit soon after take off on Thursday, 7 June 2018 and the aircraft then had to return to the city. The aircraft, A-320, took off at 8.29 am and landed safely 31 minutes later.

Confirming this, GoAir said in a statement: “GoAir flight G8 101 from Kolkata to Port Blair made a precautionary turn around and returned to Kolkata post take off owing to a bird hit.

As a standard operating measure, the pilot decided to return to Kolkata airport for an aircraft inspection as prescribed by the manufacturer manual. The flight has been cancelled for the day and will depart Friday. All passengers have been duly informed and cared for. GoAir regrets the inconvenience caused to its passengers.”

  • 0

Asia’s First Large-scale Aircraft Recycling Facility

HONG KONG, June 8, 2018 : A full value-chain aircraft solutions provider for global airlines, is pleased to announce that Asia’s first large-scale aircraft recycling facility, China Aircraft Recycling Remanufacturing Base (The “Base”), owned by Aircraft Recycling International Limited (“ARI”), a member company of the Group, has formally commenced operation today.

The Base is equipped with modern facilities and devices that utilize advanced technology. These consist of various systems for aircraft maintenance, conversion, dissembling, installation of aircraft parts, as well as aircraft materials management and sales. The Base covers seven areas of business operation, including aircraft purchasing, selling, leasing, dissembling, replacing, conversion and maintenance, providing dynamic aircraft recycling solutions to airlines, MROs, lessors, as well as manufacturers and distributors of aircraft materials.

Around 200 people joined the launch ceremony, including municipal and provincial officials from Heilongjiang, together with senior representatives from ARI’s shareholders CALC, China Everbright Limited, Friedmann Pacific Asset Management Limited and Sky Cheer International. They were also joined by other leaders from various sectors in the aviation industry. During the event, participants shared their views on the prospects of and development opportunities within the aircraft recycling and remanufacturing industry.

China Aircraft Recycling Remanufacturing Base is located on the south side of China’s Harbin Taiping International Airport. It has a gross floor area of 300,000 sqm. With the construction of Phase I completed, the Base has had an effective handling capacity of 20 aircraft per year. It has China’slargest bonded warehouse for aircraft parts. Its hangar can hold three narrow-body aircraft simultaneously or one wide-body aircraft and one narrow-body aircraft together. When an aircraft enters the Base, it is placed under visualized management throughout all procedures, including dissembling, maintenance and recycling, free from hazards. The Base adopts optimized techniques to minimize energy consumption and execute the recycle and reuse of aircraft materials and parts to participate in the green recycling economy with added value. The Base will also improve the development of various industries in China, including aviation materials’ recycling and reuse, and aircraft parts maintenance.

Mr. LI Yuze, General Manager of China Aircraft Disassembly Centre, said, “Upon commencement of operation, the Base will complete the final link in China’s aerospace manufacturing value chain. As there are yet no comprehensive aircraft recycling and remanufacturing systems in China, aging aircraft are usually dissembled and disposed of by companies in Europe and the Americas, involving high costs and long waiting times. More and more civil aircraft in China are set to retire soon, offering extended market opportunities to the emerging aircraft recycling and remanufacturing industry. With our high standards and stringent technology requirements, the Base is set to become China’s leading platform of aging aircraft solutions with business presence in Greater China and Asia as a whole. We strive to maximize the value of used aircraft for our clients and set up a new growth pillar for the aviation industry chain.”

When the Base commences operation, the strategic portfolio of Aircraft Recycling International’s (ARI) business will also be further optimized. Its subsidiary in the US, Universal Asset Management Inc. (“UAM”), is a well-established operator with extensive experience in aviation asset management, high-tech aircraft disassembly, commercial aviation aftermarket solutions and extensive customer networks and relationships. The two companies synchronize and complement each other. By integrating the aircraft and engine leasing platform and aviation investment and financing platforms established by ARI, the two companies will work together to build the world’s most advanced aging aircraft solution platform.

With its comprehensive aging aircraft solutions, ARI will also further improve CALC’s aircraft full value-chain. CALC’s unique business model offers services covering an aircraft’s full life cycle to meet airlines’ fleet management requirements, including services for new aircraft, aging aircraft and aircraft coming to the end of their lives. By leveraging the comparative strength of their respective expertise, the synergy between CALC and ARI will optimize aircraft asset allocation effectively, as well as maximize their overall economic benefits.

Mr. CHEN Shuang, JP, Chairman of CALC, said, “Aircraft recycling is the natural extension of the aviation value chain. The Base is part of CALC’s major initiative to develop into a full value-chain aircraft solutions provider for the global aviation industry. Over the years, CALC has built an efficient capability for aircraft asset management, close partnerships with its aviation partners, and flexible and diversified financing resources. ARI’s swift and steady development in aging aircraft value chain will further enhance CALC’s diversified asset management capability, maximizing value for our aviation partners.”

Mr. Mike POON, Chief Executive Officer of ARI, said, “ARI is committed to customizing asset management solutions for aging aircraft. The operation of ARI’s aircraft recycling facility is bound to enhance our unique advantages in full-value chain by connecting the local and international aviation industries. Given the surging demand for aging aircraft management in the global aviation market, ARI will efficiently increase the residual value of aging aircraft by providing holistic solutions and completing a full value chain in each stage for aircraft, contributing to the global aviation industry’s sustainable development.”

Currently, ARI’s aircraft recycling base has been granted the Maintenance Certificate in compliance with CCAR-145-R3 required by the Civil Aviation Administration of China. The Base has been certified by the Civil Aviation Maintenance Association of China as a qualified Civil Aircraft Parts Distributor and obtained the Approval Certificate of Foreign-Funded Enterprises of the People’s Republic of Chinaissued by the PRC Ministry of Commerce

  • 0

The Best and Worst Airlines and Airports of 2018

The sixth annual study by AirHelp turns up plenty of surprises.

Score report from  AirHelp, a company that advocates on behalf of air travelers for compensation in cases of delays or cancelations. Its sixth annual survey uses data from the first quarter of the year to rank the 72 International Airlines for which the company had statistically significant data.

Overall rankings are based on three factors: on-time performance, quality of service (gleaned from public reviews on an array of reliable websites), and a claims-processing score (which reflects how a company handles customer complaints).

“South African Airlines has a fantastic claims-processing score,” explains Ashley Raiteri, an industry adviser for AirHelp—the airline earned 8.69 points of a possible 10—and it’s also got a good track record of keeping flights on time.

“Irregularities in flights are going to happen,” Raiteri adds. “What’s important is whether the airline has planned for that so they can make the experience less hellish for the consumer.”

With that in mind, here are the best and worst airlines of the year, according to AirHelp, along with their on-time performance records.

The 10 Best Airlines of 2018

  • 1. Qatar Airways (89 percent on-time performance)
  • 2. Lufthansa (76 percent)
  • 3. Etihad Airways (86 percent)
  • 4. Singapore Airlines (85 percent)
  • 5. South African Airways (85 percent)
  • 6. Austrian Airlines (80 percent)
  • 7. Aegean Airlines (90 percent)
  • 8. Qantas (89 percent)
  • 9. Air Malta (86 percent)
  • 10. Virgin Atlantic (82 percent )

The Worst Airlines of 2018

  • 63. Jet Airways (65 percent on-time performance)
  • 64. Aerolineas Argentinas (85 percent)
  • 65. Iberia (84 percent)
  • 66. Korean Air (64 percent)
  • 67. Ryanair (86 percent)
  • 68. Air Mauritius (69 percent)
  • 69. EasyJet (79 percent)
  • 70. Pakistan International Airlines (61 percent)

Surprises exist on both lists. Iberia—which ranked among the best airlines on a similar report from FlightStats last year that was configured purely according to on-time performance—appears in AirHelp’s worst airlines list, a reflection of its poor “claim processing score.” KLM and Emirates, airlines with passionate fan bases, ranked 11th and 16th, respectively, just outside the top 10.

It’s also the reason that the deep-in-debt carrier took the fifth slot in this year’s 2018 AirHelp Score report from  AirHelp, a company that advocates on behalf of air travelers for compensation in cases of delays or cancelations. Its sixth annual survey uses data from the first quarter of the year to rank the 72 international airlines for which the company had statistically significant data.

Overall rankings are based on three factors: on-time performance, quality of service (gleaned from public reviews on an array of reliable websites), and a claims-processing score (which reflects how a company handles customer complaints).

 While budget carriers did not fare well, with Ryanair DAC, EasyJet Airline Co., and WOW Air all appearing among the bottom 10 airlines, there was one exception: Norwegian Air Shuttle ASA ranked 12th overall, reflecting a 76 percent on-time record and very good scores both for claims processing and quality of service.

The data concerning best and worst airports contain similar surprises. No American hubs were ranked in the top 30—Seattle-Tacoma took the domestic lead, in the 33rd slot—while a large number of Brazilian airports dominated the charts, something Raiteri attributes to good local weather and a “hub and spoke” route network that keeps flights moving smoothly and on time.

AirHelp’s data for airports cover 141 destinations. They factor in on-time performance, quality of service, and online consumer sentiment, but its rankings heavily favor the first two criteria.

“Different airports deal with different problems,” Raiteri explains, saying that Hartsfield–Jackson Atlanta has recently battled a series of power outages, while airports in Scandinavia tend to get knocked for weather delays, despite their sleek looks and efficient service.

“In some places, the local culture can leave people feeling cold,” Raiteri adds, describing the direct style of security agents in northern Europe. Here are the best and worst airports of 2018.

The 10 Best Airports of 2018

  • 1. Hamad International Airport, Doha (DOH)
  • 2. Athens International Airport, Athens (ATH)
  • 3. Tokyo Haneda International Airport, Tokyo (HND)
  • 4. Cologne Bonn Airport, Cologne, Germany (CGN)
  • 5. Singapore Changi Airport, Singapore (SIN)
  • 6. Nagoya Chubu Centrair Airport, Nagoya, Japan (NGO)
  • 7. Viracopos International Airport, Campinas, Brazil (VCP)
  • 8. Amman Queen Alia Airport, Amman, Jordan (AMM)
  • 9. Guararapes-Gilberto Freyre International Airport, Recife, Brazil (REC)
  • 10. Quito International Airport, Quito, Ecuador (UIO)

The Worst Airports of 2018

  • 132. Eindhoven Airport, Eindhoven, Netherlands (EIN)
  • 133. Bordeaux Merignac, Bordeaux, France (BOD)
  • 134. Edinburgh Airport, Edinburgh (EDI)
  • 135. Boryspil International Airport, Kiev, Ukraine (KBP)
  • 136. Manchester Airport, Manchester, United Kingdom (MAN)
  • 137. Stockholm Bromma Airport, Stockholm (BMA)
  • 138. Paris Orly, Paris (ORY)
  • 139. Lyon–Saint-Exupéry Airport, Lyon, France (LYS)
  • 140. London Stansted Airport, London (STN)
  • 141. Kuwait International Airport, Farwaniya, Kuwait (KWI)

One note of optimism: Raiteri says most airlines and airports that descended in the rankings this year did so because the marketplace is becoming more competitive, not because their individual performance is declining.

“What we mostly see is improvement, to be honest,” he tells. “Most airlines have been late to recognizing their responsibility, but after all the publicity that United got last year, we’re seeing airlines taking a much different approach to dealing with passengers.”

For both airlines and airports, he says, “We don’t see folks falling in rank due to poor performance—but because another entity is doing better and pushing them down.” Consider it a silver lining the next time you’re stranded at the gate.

  • 0

TOP 15 AIRPORTS IN WORLD ICAO REPORT OF MAY 2018 : Ranked by Aircraft Departures, Passengers and Volume of Freight

The number of aircraft departures increased with the start of the 2018 summer  Schedule. The Top 15 airports reported an increase of +2.1% YoY. The strongest growth in operations was recorded by New Delhi (+9.1%), Frankfurt (+8.7%) and Toronto (+5.2%) while three North American airports posted slight declines In terms of passengers, the Top 15 airports reported a growth of +6.3% YoY. All the Top 15  airports posted YoY increases, except for Tokyo which experienced a -3.0% decline  mainly due to the drop in domestic traffic. With the continued improvements,  Atlanta ranked over Beijing and became the 1st. New Delhi continued to record the
strongest growth within the Top 15 by +16.6%.  In terms of freight, the Top 15 airports reported the same traffic level as one year ago. The growth of freight traffic was the weakest in the last twelve months, with over half of the Top 15 airports  posting YoY declines. The most significant decline was posted by Dubai (-5.7%), followed by Paris (-3.4%). On the positive side, Miami recorded a growth of +8.6%

  • 1

MAR 2018: +6.4% YoY in terms of World ASK

All regions, posted an expansion in capacity in March 2018 with a +6.4% YoY  increase in capacity worldwide. Two regions, Asia/Pacific and North  America,  decelerated in capacity growth. Asia/Pacific continued to record the fastest capacity  expansion, followed by Latin America/Caribbean,  and both grew faster than the  world average pace. Africa and North America experienced the slowest capacity  expansion.

Membership Form


  • Section