LEO internet, whether it be Starlink, Galileo, Gogo, or even a carry-on solution, still remains the most discussed upgrade in business aviation today. In fact, it is still the number one thing I am asked about on a day to day basis. Of course, this is to be expected, given how revolutionary this connectivity is to our field as a whole. It is not dissimilar to the introduction of the iPhone in 2007, and how that forever changed the cell phone industry. It is a quantum leap forward. Despite this, however, there are still certain factors that can muddle the installation of this technology. It is not a problem of supply or demand; instead, the real conundrum is the lack of approved solutions, and the surprise complications that can come with installing a simplified system.

Starlink, for example, has generally been marketed and engineered as a plug-and-play solution. The system does not interact with the aircraft’s flight systems, entertainment systems, or its existing Wi-Fi network. In theory, all you need to install it is a power connection and a place to mount the antenna. But, there is a catch to this. While the system may be fairly simple, the aircraft itself is not. Aircrafts are not merely a blank canvas. Each individual aircraft has a collection of pre-existing mods, antennas, and integrated networks. This is where the installation of LEO technology can get somewhat tricky.

Many owners and operators expect their new internet system to work with what is already on their aircraft. That often means integrating it with their CMS (Cabin Management System), keeping the existing antennas, and using their current WAPs (Wireless Access Points). But, in the same ways that the iPhone completely reinvented its industry, LEO technology is changing connectivity. It simply is not meant to be integrated with everything else. In fact, forcing it to do so can actually undermine its performance, increase certification complexity, and result in a longer downtime. This also likely means a higher cost as well. Here, the idea of the ‘bait and switch’ really comes into play.

Oftentimes, when an aircraft owner calls to ask for a quote, without specifics, we will do our best to offer up a ballpark figure for the installation. Once the specifics roll in, however, this number can be subject to change. For instance, if an owner wants their LEO system integrated with their CMS or they want to keep their existing Ka antenna intact, it is only natural that the workload, and therefore, price, will rise. In this way, the initial ballpark price may suddenly feel like a bait and switch. The reality is, though, that the specifics of a given operation, especially when trying to integrate a LEO system with an aircraft’s existing technology, can greatly change how much time and effort needs to go into an install.

Additionally, aircraft only contain so much physical space to contain this technology. These LEO antennas are quite big. Installing them often requires relocating or even outright removing existing hardware. Of course, this all specifically depends on what, exactly, an owner is looking to do with the LEO technology, and how far they want to try and integrate it with the systems that are already present. Nevertheless, this kind of work will mean more engineering, more labor, and, as previously stated, more downtime. None of this is likely to be accounted for within the initial ballpark quote. So, while the fluctuation in cost may seem like a bait and switch, in reality, it is born out of a misalignment between how LEO systems are designed to be installed, and how operators expect them to work.

There are ways, however, to mitigate this misalignment, which will ensure, to some degree, that the initial quote will more closely reflect the end price. The biggest takeaway here is to ask the right questions, and to make clear to the MRO how you want the installation to be done. What do you want to integrate? What existing antennas or mods should remain? These factors are fundamental in determining how much downtime and money will be spent on completing the LEO installation. In this way, while LEO technology is certainly simpler than other connectivity systems, that does not always mean cheaper, especially when it comes to retrofitting it into a pre-existing, complex system.

For business jet owners, the availability of LEO connectivity like Starlink and Galileo can be quite enticing. Naturally, this leads to a big question that has come up a lot for us at Pro Star since LEO technology’s arrival on the business aviation scene. The question is: Can I remove my existing SATCOM to install new connectivity? This question, however, is not so simple to answer. In fact, it actually opens up a rabbit hole of many varying possibilities and outcomes. While LEO technology’s high speed, low latency internet can be exciting, when it comes to replacing your current SATCOM system, it is not simply about upgrading your aircraft; it’s really about understanding what your existing system does, what regulations may apply, and if replacement is even possible in the first place.

To determine this, we have to understand the differences between individual SATCOM systems. Many aircraft have SATCOM systems that serve multiple roles. Some provide passenger internet connection, while others are critical for cockpit communications and ATC compliance. The question of whether or not you can replace your current SATCOM system fully depends on what this system is doing for your aircraft and what requirements might apply. In order to understand what options an aircraft owner might have; it is important to differentiate between the separate types of SATCOM systems.

Broadly speaking, SATCOM systems fall into three categories. Legacy systems like Iridium and Inmarsat “SwiftBroadBand” represent one of these categories. These systems provide low band-width data, voice communications, and cockpit connectivity.  Oftentimes, these systems are used for flight deck safety functions, including ATC datalink, https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/business-aviation/2023-07-03/getting-yes-cpdlc. While some of these legacy systems can provide passenger internet, it is not their primary function, and it simply will not deliver at the same speed as LEO connectivity. Because these systems primarily provide functions that are required for specific flight operations, newer technology like Starlink or Galileo will not be able to fill these roles.

There are also systems like Viasat and Inmarsat Ka. At a first glance, these systems and their capabilities are more closely aligned to Starlink. These systems provide aircraft with high-speed internet for passengers, including VPN access and enabling real-time video conferencing. Unlike the previous category, these systems are primarily for business use and entertainment rather than essential cockpit and safety functions. Depending on what an owner may be looking for in their connectivity, a newer system like Starlink may actually be a suitable replacement for these SATCOM systems.

Finally, there are LEO systems, like Starlink or OneWeb’s Galileo. While these systems offer, by far, the quickest and most expansive connectivity of the three broad categories, there are still factors to consider when looking at replacing the legacy systems with these newer technologies. As discussed previously, there are certain functions, like cockpit communications and compliance, that technologies like Starlink are just not capable of replacing. Additionally, as these LEO systems are still relatively new, their integration into business jets is still evolving. Depending on the needs of an owner’s aircraft, however, Starlink or OneWeb may be a suitable replacement for their older system. Switching to a new system like Starlink is not simply about personal preference; it’s really about making sure that the aircraft remains compliant and operational. While Starlink may be a great addition to an aircraft, it is not a suitable replacement for everything. There are certain key questions that need to be considered when it comes to replacing a pre-existing SATCOM system: Does the current SATCOM system provide required cockpit communications?, Is the aircraft subject to regulatory requirements?, Does the new system have comparable coverage?, and How complex will the installation/replacement be? Of course, there are several additional questions and factors that are crucial to consider when seeking to replace a SATCOM system. Consulting with an expert in the field is always a good idea when it comes to something as complex as this. Though replacing older technology with newer technology may seem fairly straightforward, every aircraft is different, and when it comes to replacing SATCOM, there is no one-size-fits-all solution.

Since the dawn of in-flight connectivity, network congestion has been a serious concern in the aviation community. Historically, geosynchronous satellites and ATG networks have struggled to combat significant congestion, especially when in busy, concentrated areas like major airports. Each of these different systems of connectivity has been plagued with their own problems that have been extremely difficult to overcome.

Lately, however, the game has been completely changed by the introduction of LEO satellites such as Starlink and Galileo “OneWeb.” While this advancement has rapidly changed the state of IFC, there are still many people voicing their concerns that this, too, could fall victim to the old issues that afflicted connectivity before. With the presence of LEO technology, however, the old arguments around network congestion simply don’t apply anymore.

It is certainly understandable to be skeptical of new technology, especially after experiencing issues with past technologies that, at first, seemed promising. Gogo’s ATG network is a good example of this. While the network started strong, and seemed to offer a solution to network congestion, it quickly became overwhelmed. The plain fact of the matter is, there are certain innate differences to LEO satellites that will prevent this from occurring. One major difference between LEO and GEO satellites is the LEO satellites ability to move.

A big reason for GEO satellite based congestion stemmed from its fixed position relative to the Earth. Because its spot beam is resigned to a single location, flying over high traffic locations has frequently caused network congestion for business jets. Terrestrial-based networks have faced the same issues for similar reasons. It is not unlike using your cell phone at a crowded concert or sports event. With too many people trying to connect to one single tower, network congestion is inevitable. This is yet another problem that LEO technology has an answer for. Because LEO satellites are not fixed, it is much easier for them to avoid congestion. Even if they face network congestion, the sheer number of them allows them to offload congestion from one satellite to another. The static GEO satellites simply do not have this capability. Additionally, both the GEO satellites and the bespoke aviation ATG network are extremely difficult to upgrade due to cost. This is yet another problem that LEO technology has an answer for.

The benefit to LEO satellites is that they are inherently replaceable. With a lifespan of roughly 5 years, their business model requires them to replace the satellite once it is decommissioned, often multiple at a time. This allows LEO companies to always allow for as many satellites as they need. Additionally, it gives them the opportunity to fix potential issues by incorporating newer elements of technology. In this way, LEO satellites are able to constantly innovate and consistently stay ahead of network congestion, as problems will always be addressed promptly.

Another problem that traditional satellite systems have faced is the limited number of users they can support. ATG networks, for instance, were initially designed with a specific user pool in mind, mostly for aviation-specific use. This meant that when this small capacity was reached and eventually surpassed, the network became heavily saturated, with essentially no room to grow or modify. Again, this issue just simply does not apply to LEO technology. LEO satellites like Starlink were designed to have mass-market appeal. They were not specifically intended solely for aviation, which means they have the capacity to support tens if not hundreds of millions of users. The demand for aviation connectivity, in comparison, is not even a drop in the bucket to what they can support. This essentially nullifies network congestion for business aviation.

While skepticism for this new technology may be historically founded, comparing LEO technology to some of the problems faced by its predecessors is like comparing apples to oranges. LEO satellites are operating on an entirely new architecture, which allows for them to easily surpass many of the connectivity problems that aviation has faced for the past several decades. There is no denying that the future of satellite connectivity has arrived. With adaptations and improvements essentially built into the LEO business model, aviation connectivity will likely never be plagued by network congestion again.

With 2024 behind us, the inevitable question of what the new year will bring hangs in our minds. For business aviation flights, the common expectation has been quite similar to last year. Now that the industry has largely recovered from the pandemic, it only makes sense for the post-COVID growth to eventually plateau. That seems to be what we are seeing for this upcoming year. A January 24, 2025 article in Private Jet Card Comparisons indicated “North American private jet flight segments are expected to increase by 0.2% in 2025, according to the annual ARGUS TRAQPak forecast.”

So, at the very least, it is likely that business aviation growth should stay on par with last year. This trend would be expected to translate to the aircraft maintenance and upgrade marketplace as well. I have reason to believe, however, that other underlying factors of the industry may drive demand to a higher level than anticipated. There are two primary reasons for this: parts obsolescence and the continuous rise of LEO technology. While, perhaps, for opposite reasons, both of these factors are sure to greatly impact the amount of demand facing the industry this year.

First, the never-ending issue of parts obsolescence continues to complicate lead time and parts availability, which in turn, affects an owner’s ability to easily schedule maintenance and upgrades. This industry has also long relied on a ‘just in time’-esque inventory system, where parts are only ordered when needed. Though business aviation has survived off of this model, it is clearly impractical, and it can lead to unpredictable and inefficient downtime for maintenance and upgrade projects. This issue is entirely exacerbated by the limited number of MRO facilities
with the capacity to meet the demands for aircraft maintenance and upgrades. This is why I expect little to no growth in this sector of business aviation. Even though, I do predict that the prominence of LEO technology and parts obsolescence may create a larger demand than flat number of flight hours would predict.

While LEO technology is still early in its evolution, when it comes to our industry, this technology is practically in its infancy. Clearly, Starlink stands at the forefront of this innovation for aviation, however, Gogo will soon be joining the marketspace too, with other startup companies soon to follow. Because this technology is so new, it makes sense that installations will continue to expand throughout the year. While this is a positive for the industry, limited MRO capacity and inventory issues are going to make it more difficult to schedule downtime to adopt the new LEO technology.

Just a year ago, it was not uncommon to be able to schedule a Starlink installation within a couple of weeks. Now, however, it is unlikely to get into a facility within a couple of months or more. This highlights the severity of the issue. This has created a scenario in which the demand for installations and aircraft maintenance is strong enough that unplanned upgrades or maintenance visits will result in much longer lead-times than in the past. This issue of demand exceeding supply is something that I don’t see being corrected within the near term.

Now the real question is: How can aircraft owners avoid these delays in uptime over the course of this new year? To me, the answer is quite simple: proactivity. Finding a facility that can accomplish all of the maintenance, upgrades, and installations needed in a single downtime period and on a timetable that works for the owner is going to be paramount in 2025. Pre-planning is the key to ensuring the needs of aircraft operators will be accommodated in a timely manner. In fact, many MROs have already booked well into quarter 2, if not the whole year. For an aircraft owner in 2025, acting in advance will be the only way to guarantee that maintenance can be done in a timely manner.