The recent breakdown of the UK's air traffic management system during the August bank holiday was a catastrophe for travelers, disrupting close to 2000 flights and impacting hundreds of thousands of passengers. While the immediate focus was on the inconvenience caused to passengers, the larger questions now arise: what exactly went wrong, and how can such a failure be prevented in the future?

According to NATS' investigation, the system failure was triggered by a single erroneous piece of data—a flight plan containing two identically-named waypoint markers thousands of miles apart. This led to a "critical exception," causing both the primary and backup systems to fail simultaneously. While NATS is expected to rectify this IT failure promptly, questions linger about other vulnerabilities within the system and the management's accountability for such critical errors.

This incident with NATS highlights a broader issue across Europe: Air Navigation Service Providers (ANSPs) often escape consequences for poor performance. These ANSPs operate as monopolies, and without strict regulation, they tend to deliver the minimum standard of service. The current system inadvertently rewards failure, as evidenced by increasing delays, missed environmental targets, and rising service charges.

Implementing the Single European Sky could be a solution, promising a 10% reduction in emissions. However, the reality is that this initiative faces significant delays and challenges in EU states agreeing to strong performance targets and independent regulation of ANSPs. In the meantime, exploring other avenues, such as holding ANSPs financially responsible for service failures, becomes crucial.

Despite the generous EU 261 passenger rights regulations, airlines are not required to compensate for "extraordinary circumstances" like air traffic control failures. However, the costs of such disruptions can be substantial, exceeding GBP100 million in this case. Passengers are entitled to compensation for care and assistance, including food, travel, and accommodation costs, while airlines also incur expenses from crews being out of position and additional flights to clear backlogs. Shockingly, NATS, responsible for the entire incident, bears no financial responsibility, stating it is not within their remit to address cost reimbursement or compensation.

Post-Brexit, the UK has an opportunity to address this issue by adopting proposed changes to EU 261 from a decade ago. Shared accountability across the aviation value chain would ensure that airlines are not solely burdened with the costs of disruptions beyond their control. Regulation 261 currently costs European airlines around EUR5.8 billion annually, a significant portion due to air traffic control-related delays. The proposed reform package includes a meaningful right of redress for airlines, highlighting the urgent need for change.

Passenger rights regulations should not just compensate for losses but also incentivize system improvement. Modifying EU261 and its British counterpart to hold those responsible for poor service financially accountable would drive better performance. This would partially compensate for governments' reluctance to regulate ANSP monopolies effectively.

The failure on 28 August cannot be dismissed as an isolated incident; it underscores the ongoing challenges within air navigation services across Europe. The question remains: when will politicians take action to address these systemic issues?