During the last few years in which I have had the opportunity to serve the Air Transport Industry, it has become evident to me that, in several regions, a reconciliation between Air Transport Service and Air Traffic Management is necessary and urgent.

In these regions, Air Transport Service planners, providers, regulators, and users have been attempting to apply a conventional market logic to a SERVICE that is naturally and irremediably subject to the laws of physics, which manifest themselves, in Air Traffic Management principles and constraints.

Worldwide, the resumption of traffic growth post-COVID has once again placed Air Transport Service and Air Traffic Management on a collision course, with the proliferation of traffic congestions (in flight and on the ground), the consequences of which are both predictable and inevitable:

• Increasing impact of fuel costs, a consequence of the spread of delays (on the ground and airborne).
• Worsening environmental impact, due to unnecessary CO2 emissions.
• Reduced predictability, with "flight times" subject to increasing variability, depending on the level of congestion, at any given moment.

Back in 2012, ICAO has raised a flag to such situation, proposing the Collaborative Traffic Flow Management (Doc. 9971), which became popularly known as CDM Operation.

CDM Operation (adopted in Europe and the United States, but ignored in many other regions) proposed the introduction of gradual levels of interference in the flight intentions of aircraft operators, aiming to prioritize fuel efficiency, environmental protection, and flight time predictability, at the expense of punctuality in door closing and takeoff.

Nothing different from what happens in urban transport at large cities, when demand exceeds capacity!

Initially, such interferences would be punctual (applicable to a few flights) and of reduced impact - the CTOTs of Ground Delay Program.

In more critical scenarios of imbalance between Demand and Capacity, more drastic levels of interference could be justified, such as Eurocontrol Pre-Departure Sequencing or FAA´s Metering (TOBT/TSAT +/- 5 min), which imposes more severe restrictions applicable to all flights.

Regions such as Latin America and the Caribbean, which have historically rejected the Ground Delay Program, due to an obsession with the punctuality of door-close & takeoff, have unwisely attempted to adopt the European Pre-Departure Sequencing (A-CDM), believing it to be an initiative for capacity increase, supported by sublime ideals of "collaboration and information sharing" - no sacrifices!

In such regions, airports which chose this path, discovered its conceptual flaw in the most painful way ? operational chaos, financial losses, and a search for "culprits" for the failure.

I have spent the last five years bearing the burden of alerting Air Transport Service planners, providers, and regulators to what the Final Report of the 22nd Meeting of the ICAO GREPECAS (CAR/SAM Planning and Implementation Regional Group), published in March 2025, has finally formalized.

• Latin American and Caribbean airports should not attempt to implement the European A-CDM, whose origins and justifications are part of a long-term regional process of adoption of CDM Operation philosophy, which has been rejected in the region, to date.
• The need to increase capacity at the busiest airports in the region, should be addressed through initiatives long recommended by ICAO - Adoption of Apron Management Services (ICAO Annex 14) and the use of Surface Surveillance Technologies (ICAO GANP ASBUs SURF-B0/2 and B0/3).

While regions such as Latin America and the Caribbean do not promote reconciliation between Air Transport Service and Air Traffic Management, they will continue to witness:

• Airlines and Airports operating with more traffic and worse financial results.
• The provision of a more expensive, more polluting, less predictable, and more litigious Air Transport Service.