How aviation can survive “the new age of geoeconomics”

Recently, Gillian Tett’s Financial Times essay, “The New Age of Geoeconomics” argued that international economics is increasingly being used as instruments of political contestation. This has generated considerable buzz because of its connection to real-world events, which may be a systemic shift with far-reaching implications. 

Coincidentally, on the same week as Tett’s essay, The Future of Aviation Roundtable was held in Singapore to explore the impact of the changing geopolitical landscape on aviation. This topic will be the preoccupation of the world for years to come. Aviation is no exception. 

Some may say that geoeconomics is no stranger to aviation. Politics has always been an integral part of aviation. This is especially so for an industry intricately intertwined with airspace matters.  

The very first attempt to define an international aviation order resulted in the Paris Convention of 1919. Influenced by World War I, the Paris Convention took a state-centric approach to aviation. Unsurprisingly, this was reinforced by the Chicago Convention 25 years later, also drafted in the shadows of a world war. Today, much of aviation remains in the strong hand of governments, from air traffic rights, ironically called degrees of freedom, to provision of air traffic services, to infrastructure development. 

The coming age of geoeconomics can either bring additional threats to aviation, or it can be a moment of opportunities. While certain functions, such as safety regulation, remain the rightful domain of governments, many aspects of aviation should not be shaped by government bureaucracy. Ironic as it may sound, this crisis can catalyse a move towards a post-sovereign aviation order.

A post-sovereign aviation order, in simple terms, is aviation by the industry, for the industry. Market needs and professional excellence should be the supreme principles to guide our actions, which should not be subordinated to politics. 

The old globalisation order we are used to is crumbling as more walls and wars are emerging. In an increasingly hostile state-centric world, the aviation industry can become a collateral victim, or worse, an instrument of inter-state politics. If we take the current geopolitical trajectory to its logical conclusion, aviation has a dismal future. This certainty should be a strong incentive for change. Instead of passively suffering in silence, the community should step forward to take charge as an industry. 

Ronald Reagan, when faced with an unprecedented economic crisis, insightfully said: “In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.” There are lessons here on how the aviation industry can rewire our mental model. 

Are post-sovereign ideals operationally practicable in the aviation world? Is post-sovereign aviation order just a highfalutin simplification or pure naivety? As the renowned political scientist, Samuel Huntington said, in reply to critics of his Clash of Civilisations: “When people think seriously, they think abstractly; they conjure up simplified pictures of reality called concepts, theories, models, paradigms.”

One tangible example is when the industry proactively takes ownership to develop fit-for-purpose and future-ready concept of operations. The Complete Air Traffic System (CATS) is a case of an industry led initiative to design and build a better future airspace, integrating unmanned and traditional aviation, through digitalisation, dynamic design, and intelligent management. There can be other similar possibilities. 

ATFM in the Asia Pacific region is a quintessential example of cross-border challenge beset by the old state-centric mindset. While there is currently a process in place, it is not binding, lacks transparency, and does not have region-wide reconciliation. If we can set aside our state-centric perspective, the region can have a more joined-up ATFM network, better performance, and data sharing across boundaries through digital solutions. 

In an increasingly digital world, the centre of gravity for service provision will shift to tech companies. ICAO has given the responsibility for air traffic service provision to states, but states do not have to be the service provider. Take for instance Aeronautical Information Management (AIM), Europe has taken a collective regional way to provide AIM, as opposed to individual states doing it. AIM in Europe is provided by GroupEAD, an industry consortium. In the Asia Pacific region, the Common Aeronautical Regional VPN (CRV) project is implemented as a managed service.  More of such can be done, and improvements will come from competition among the service providers, even as the boundaries of state jurisdiction remain unchanged. 

If the community succeeds in moving to a new industry-centric paradigm, regional aviation will become more interconnected, and safely protected from the unravelling political order. More professional practices, cost-effective services, and new frameworks can be built, by the industry, and for the industry.

The new age of geoeconomics may well be here to stay. The aviation industry will not remain unscathed if it does nothing. We either change or we languish.