The Top 5 Areas Most Investors, Startups, and Companies Don’t Understand About Air Traffic Management (ATM) - Part 1

Our discussion highlights a core reality that many investors, startups, and technology companies entering aviation underestimate: air traffic management (ATM) modernization is not primarily a technology problem, it’s a system-integration problem shaped by time variability, operational complexity, imperfect data, human behavior, public acceptance, and real-world constraints. 

Our Panel emphasizes that success in aviation innovation depends less on whether a vehicle or software works in isolation and more on whether it can operate reliably inside a crowded, constantly changing national airspace system (NAS) alongside airline, business aviation, general aviation, drones, and future AAM operators. 

They argue that reducing time variability, improving data accuracy and collaboration, understanding the strategic relationship between ATM and ATC, and accounting for political, community, and operational realities aren’t solved by the occasional naive comments often mentioned in investor decks, (e.g., “we’ll stay away from the big airports,” or even not realizing that the airspace is often a major constraint). 

Ultimately, the companies most likely to succeed will be those that deeply understand how the aviation system actually behaves under pressure and then design their technologies and business models accordingly.

It seems every week, new companies announce plans to put aircraft, drones, or air taxis into the sky. The pitch decks are polished. The investor interest is real. In many cases the technical idea genuinely works. But often the technology can't "fit" into the airspace where it must be used.

If the proposed idea doesn't come with a viable plan to fly within the constraints of existing airports, ATM, flight data systems, exclusion zones, community reaction, ground transport, scheduling, reservations and booking, it's just a technological demonstration — not a commercial proposition.

But again and again, the people who have spent careers inside the air traffic management system notice the same gaps. The same things get glossed over. The same assumptions get made.

It seems every week, new companies announce plans to put aircraft, drones, or air taxis into the sky. The pitch decks are polished. The investor interest is real. In many cases the technical idea genuinely works. But often the technology can't “fit” into the airspace where it must be used. If the proposed idea doesn't come with a viable plan to fly within the constraints of existing airports, ATM, flight data systems, exclusion zones, community reaction, ground transport, scheduling, reservations and booking, it's just a technological demonstration, not a commercial proposition.

But again and again, the people who have spent careers inside the air traffic management system notice the same gaps. The same things get glossed over. The same assumptions get made.

We recently sat down with three of those veterans with Jim Barry moderating. Jim was joined by 

• Tom White,  a seasoned ATM leader with more than three decades of experience developing strategies for some of the world’s most complex ATM systems.

• Lorne Cass, an executive leader with deep expertise in airline operations control, FAA air traffic management, airport efficiency, and aviation safety.

• Mark Hopkins, who brings over four decades of experience in airline operations and air traffic management. He recently retired from Delta Air Lines, where he served as Director of Air Traffic Management and Collaborative Decision Making (CDM).

Their discussion centered on five areas they most want investors, startups, and new entrants to understand about air traffic management.

1. You Are Not Operating on an Island

This was perhaps the most direct point of the conversation, and the one that Lorne said comes up most often when he talks to new entrants.

Lorne Cass: I talked to a drone operator a couple of years ago. Very smart. Incredible technology. And they simply said: we really don't need that ATC stuff. We'll just separate ourselves. And that's true. You can probably separate yourself from yourself. But what about other operators? How do you not run into the guy from a competitor? That really hasn't entered the thought. 'Oh yeah, I guess — how do we do that?'

Tom White:  Just because you “can” doesn’t mean you can. Just because the technology can support a new capability doesn’t mean the NAS environment can support it. That’s how a some technology companies look at things. They say, ‘How can I do this better? We know we can be more efficient. Our technology can get to that point in space at an specific time.’  But it doesn’t include all the other moving parts.

Lorne pointed to the specific challenge that collaborative data creates: the data on scheduled operations can be good. But there are a lot of operations that are not scheduled, and they are not accounted for in most current planning tools.

Lorne Cass: We have airlines, business aviation, general aviation, and now drones and AAM vehicles all wanting to use the same airspace. A lot of those unscheduled operators are not included in planning systems, and won't be for some time. That impacts everything.

This is not an argument against new entrants. It is an argument for understanding the full system before assuming the system will accommodate you.

2. Every Schedule Is Perfect Until the First Plane Moves

Tom White: Mike Tyson had a saying: everybody has a plan until they get punched in the face. Every schedule is perfect until the first plane moves.

The lesson for startups is that technology that works beautifully in isolation or a “controlled” environment, in a test corridor, in a simulation, on a single vehicle, is not the same as technology that works inside a fully operational NAS environment. The hard part is not building a capability that performs in a sterile environment., It’s building a capability that performs when NAS is very busy.

Lorne built on that point by describing what actually happens once an operation is underway.

Lorne Cass: It can change constantly. If I plan my flight from JFK to San Francisco and I put my times in, from the time I am actually in motion in real time, things can change constantly. Once we get that pushback off the gate, we kind of have no control. We might not get off the ground out of New York in a timely fashion. En route, I may not get the altitude I wanted because of turbulence, winds, and so forth. The time and location I thought I would be at my top of descent is going to change on the fly.

Tom White: I know someone who built FMS systems and said he could get a Boeing 737 to be at a specific point in space at an exact time, and it could.  But what wasn’t considered were the dynamics of the NAS fleet, crossing traffic, traffic ahead of your flight etc.  That technology worked but the NAS environment couldn’t support it.

Continue to Part 2 for points 3 through 5, including why time variability matters more than efficiency, what accurate data collaboration actually requires, and why the public and Congress always get a vote.