Speaking on the issue in 2018, International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Secretary General Dr Fang Liu said: “In an industry as interconnected as air transport, we cannot lose sight of the fact that a single cyber incident will likely impact multiple companies and stakeholders.”

The agency has published updated guidelines, known as the Global Aviation Security Plan, on steps industry and governments should be taking to address the evolving risk in cybersecurity.

In 2018, airports and airlines spent $4bn on cybersecurity, signalling a change of approach. SITA CEO Barbara Dalibard said: “The importance of cybersecurity is well recognised, and airlines and airports are investing in building a solid security foundation. However, the number of cyber threats continues to grow exponentially every year, as does the sophistication of those threats.”

Stating the growing reliance of the travelling public on technology would have a “profound impact on how passengers interact with airports and airlines”, SITA said eight in ten airports and airline IT leaders it surveyed believed this demographic shift will be the “most important influence on their passenger solutions strategy by 2025”.

The ATC incidents in France and Germany serve to highlight the risks posed by IT failures for air traffic control. They also help support calls for the modernisation of air traffic management (ATM) systems, particularly across Europe under the European ATM Master Plan.

The plan is part of the EU's Single European Sky project, announced in 2004, to “reform ATM in Europe in order to cope with sustained air traffic growth and operations under the safest, most cost- and flight-efficient and environmentally friendly conditions”.

Whether such initiatives will reduce the risk of IT failures, or might mean their impact could be felt more widely across the continent's airports, remains unclear.

Airlines have, for many years, been operating their own check-in systems, from the same desks with their own procured technology. However, in recent years more and more airports and airlines have turned to common use passenger processing systems (CUPPS), a ‘range of services, specifications, and standards enacted to enable multiple airlines, service providers, or other users to share physical check-in or gate podium positions’ as defined by the International Air Transport Association (IATA).

It is likely adopting a standardised system won’t result in the end of IT failures at check-in. However, there are numerous benefits according to AiQ Consulting: “CUPPS reduces the cost for airlines and airports, simplifying procurement, installation, support and ongoing maintenance of passenger processing and operations. Using the CUPPS standard also offers support and maintenance, as well as facilitating the airport’s transition to common use, from kiosks to boarding controls,” it says.

Heathrow’s BHS failure spelt misery for passengers, meaning they arrived at their destination before their luggage. Perhaps the biggest challenge posed by such systems is the amount of work they do and how much they are relied on. From weighing and counting baggage to security and then transporting bags throughout the airport to the correct destination, these systems are complex. Any technical issue, either at departure or arrival, has the potential to cause significant inconvenience. 

BHSs are becoming even more complex, with the added element of increasingly popular self-service baggage drops. Stantec’s Matt Colby warns of the risks such systems pose if not correctly designed and installed. “You might be surprised at how far-reaching the ripple effect can be when you try to simplify just one process, like baggage,” he says in an article from earlier this year.

Colby adds that whilst the benefits of these systems are obvious, getting the design right is essential to ensure there are no blockages. Airline agents must be fully trained and systems have to be user-friendly and not too difficult for passengers.

Finally, passenger safety is by far the most important concern. All baggage system must include sensors to identify human interference, particularly that of children, either falling onto the belts or placing themselves there.

As our exposure to technology increases, so too do the risks of an IT failure. Whilst measures can be introduced to try to limit that risk, it is obvious air travel of the future will be prone to IT failure risks. Therefore, contingency planning is essential.

The biggest risk area is the loss of landside activity, loss of airside, and loss of baggage systems that work between landside and airside, says AiQ, adding: “Contingency planning means having a recognised structure and model for what happens when things go wrong.”

The very nature of IT – seamlessly working in the background – means it is often not oblivious a problem is just around the corner. The next best thing to preventing it is being ready for when it happens.