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.

Last month, I took a look at the progress Starlink has made over the past 6 months and the excitement its connectivity has generated in business aviation. As an MRO, we have been booked solid with upgrading connectivity solutions and maintenance for aircraft owners. Pro Star is not alone in this, in fact, many MROs are busy with connectivity installations, cabin management upgrades, and operational upgrades. While this is great for business aviation as a whole, all of these aircraft modifications become pointless if the plane can’t fly. This is where I fear many owners may be overlooking something that could very easily ground their business jet. The standby indicator, while not as glamorous or alluring as Starlink’s top-rated connectivity, does pose a serious risk to aircraft dispatch reliability. Most of the current standby indicators are primarily made by Meggitt, L3Harris, and Thales. Unfortunately, most of the units that are in the vast majority of business jets are no longer supported. Even aircraft still under factory warranty may have obsolete standby systems.

We at Pro Star have already faced first-hand the struggles that this obsolescence has created in the field. Recently, we had a relatively new aircraft, a Falcon 2000LXS, in our hangar for a pre-purchase inspection. After our inspection, the new owner bought the plane; it’s very first flight after leaving our hangar, the aircraft had a standby indication system failure. For the next several days, the plane was AOG. During this time, the owner reached out to us as a Falcon service center to locate a replacement for the standby indicator. We were not alone in this search. In addition to our team, the aircraft manufacturer, the management company, and the actual owner were all looking. Eventually, we found a replacement on the used market. Unfortunately, the replacement unit was just as old as the one that failed, and it is not likely to be a long-term solution to this problem. This is not the only issue at play here. The headline here is really this: We are a Falcon Jet Service Center, and we can’t get these parts. It’s not just Pro Star, either; all Falcon Jet Service Centers and, by extension, most of the maintenance for even modern business jets are having difficulty supporting these units.

The standby display system is a required flight instrument, it must be installed in accordance with a Type Certificate, Supplemental Type Certificate, or a Service Bulletin and fully functioning in order to dispatch the aircraft. This does not leave a lot of room for compromise. So, what can a business jet owner do to combat the obsolescence of the standby indicator? The most feasible option is to replace it with an upgraded version of the one that is currently in the aircraft, and if possible, to salvage what’s left of the old system components. Typically, this consists of the standby indicator, a battery, and some sort of air data module. Some of these components tend to cause less issues than others. In fact, it is really the display and their associated sensors that are the real problem. The batteries, generally speaking, are fairly easy to maintain. Even the obsolete standby batteries often have plug and play replacements available.

When it comes to picking standby system manufacturers, it can certainly be tricky. The primary manufacturers of standby units that aircraft manufacturers use (i.e., Meggitt, L3, Thales) don’t all have drop-in replacements for the legacy units. While L3 does offer a select amount of drop-in replacement options such as the GH-3900 and the EFD-750, these options are often limited to aircraft that already have L3Harris units. This is due to a lack of accessibility in terms of approvals and, in some cases, a different form factor in the replacement unit. When it comes to Meggitt and Thales, Garmin is really your only option for a solution. Garmin’s GI-275, in many ways, is comparable to the EFD-750 from L3Harris. The difference, however, is the range of accessibility it can offer. The GI-275 is a universal unit that can fit into multiple types of aircraft, with STC options readily available. These details are further divulged in the links provided for this blog. The real quandary is, even with options for units that are reasonably affordable, widely available, with STC availability for almost any aircraft, people just don’t think to replace it until they have a failure. Harkening back to the Falcon 2000LXS, when you have a failure, there is no readily available replacement option. This is why it may be better to include this within the budget to be replaced like any other consumable during your next annual maintenance. In the wake of waning support for the unit and its status as a flight requirement, there is no reason not to be proactive with this equipment. The last thing any owner wants is their jet stuck on standby.

Garmin: https://www.garmin.com/en-US/newsroom/press-release/aviation/garmin-gi-275-receives-stc-for-dassault-aviations-falcon-7x/

AOPA: https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2023/january/19/garmin-gi-275-cleared-for-business-jet-service

Business Air News: https://www.businessairnews.com/hb_news_story.html?release=91847

In the beginning of 2024, Starlink was in its infancy in the Aviation world. Experts in the business aviation industry had many concerns about how the Starlink system would work in this niche market. Now, just over six months later, several aircraft maintenance companies have had the opportunity to begin to install Starlink into business jets. At Pro Star, we have been able to complete nearly 10 installations since the beginning of the year. In total, there are now over one hundred business jets in the field with Starlink. The early reviews are in, so to speak. The results, across the board, are even better than expected. Some would say they have surpassed the expectations set by the industry after seeing their impressive demonstration at the 2023 NBAA BACE.

One challenge for Starlink that still remains, is the amount of time it takes to complete the installation. When installing Starlink outside of a planned maintenance event or interior refurbishment, anything less than three weeks to completion is highly optimistic. Despite this lengthy downtime, there are ways to capitalize on it. For instance, aircraft owners could try to align any upcoming maintenance items, instead of waiting for a major planned event.

If there are not any maintenance items that line up with the installation downtime, one of the most popular options to do while most of the aircraft interior is removed, is a cabin management/entertainment system upgrade. Getting the cabin management to a point where there’s little to no obsolete equipment is a great use of that time. In fact, it is feasible to accomplish both at the same price or even less than a Satcom installation was five years ago. Additionally, there are many companies that have systems that don’t require much in the way of interior alterations of refurbishment.

While interior refurbishment might sound like a likely option to combine downtime efforts, typically the downtime and planning for that type of effort is even longer than getting on the queue to install Starlink. However, taking measurements for a replacement carpet or softgoods replacement in the future is a wise use of the time. Accomplishing deep cleaning, cabin detailing or minor repairs are also a great use of the time.

As far as installation STC status goes, there have been some recent changes. First, Bombardier has endorsed the STC from Nextant, while Embraer intends to do the same. Dassault is also in the midst of incorporating its own design for both the 2000 and the 7X/8X. Additionally Gulfstream and Textron are starting design efforts for their fleet of aircraft. All of these developments indicate that, before long, there will be OEM endorsed solutions for every major large business aircraft. Nextant is also looking into providing insurance coverage for any airframe warranty concerns for its current STC solutions on Gulfstream aircraft. Because of this, many of the early concerns relating to Gulfstream and other manufacturers are being put to bed, as they are either endorsing the solution or there will be insurance to allay concerns about warranty infractions.

Nextant has also begun work on creating a different antenna shroud that will better accommodate smaller aircraft, such as Challenger 300 series, Praetors and Phenoms. While there doesn’t seem to be a clear road map to the Starlink Mini system being retrofitted for aviation use, there have been talks amongst industry experts that introducing a smaller form factor for light aircraft will be imperative to capture that market sector. Despite these potential changes, the current antenna design will be here to stay for a long time and subtle changes in antenna design will be easy to adapt to the Nextant antenna shroud. In the satcom world size matters so the large format antenna will always produce better results than a smaller form factor. The mid-year reception is officially in, and the reviews are glowing. Starlink has maintained a high reputation within the field, despite a rocky and skeptical beginning. As someone who had concerns, myself, I am happy to report that there seems to be nothing but good things ahead for Starlink and in-flight connectivity as a whole. It appears that the future of Starlink will be long, fruitful, and bright.

Back in April of 2023, I expressed some potential issues about the future of Starlink’s business model for Business aviation. In the months that have followed, however, Starlink has gone out of their way to address many of these issues. Some of these updates were noted by Pro Star at the 2023 NBAA BACE, held in Las Vegas. Now, nearly a year later, Starlink’s future in Business Aviation looks very promising, and they are poised to change the face of In-Flight Connectivity (IFC) as we know it.

One of the primary concerns expressed in April was that I did not see a direct-to-consumer model, similar to Tesla, working in the field of Business aviation. This is something that Starlink seeming has come to agree with, as they have now moved away from this concept. In its place, Starlink has started a dealer network, of which Pro Star is one of the very first dealers. The dealer network will provide the hardware and the installation for Starlink equipment. So, while consumers may still purchase the equipment directly from Starlink and install it themselves, most customers will undoubtedly use the dealer network to get Starlink installed. This also takes care of my concerns about consumer expectations, as this model now enables the customer to deal with people that they’re comfortable with, which adds validity to the installation process.

Another concern I raised was about the FAA installation approval process. This, too, has been addressed. To ensure that FAA regulations are being compiled with, Starlink is working through a couple of certification partners. These partners will be conducting all of the FAA approvals (STC’s) for the various aircraft types.

Last year, I also expressed hesitation about the installation and operational costs. Back in April, the installation costs had not yet been defined by Starlink, while the monthly service fees ranged from $12,500-$25,000. Now, because they are working through a dealer network, Starlink will let the customer’s solicit proposals from the Dealer’s like virtually all other avionics manufacturers. This is a departure from my skepticism, which was primarily based in a direct-to-consumer model. Additionally, Starlink has lowered the unlimited pricing to $10,000 per month and created a “Pay As You Go” model that starts at $2,000 per month

Technical support after the initial installation was another worry I raised in April. While this issue has not been entirely clarified, Starlink has taken steps to simplify this process through the dealer network. Part of the dealer agreement is that accepted dealers will provide installation and warranty support for the aircraft, which helps to take care of post-installation support. In this respect, new dealers are compelled to have a larger role in the partnership, which will be important moving forward.

While my big concerns have been addressed over the past 10 months, the strengths that Starlink had in April still remain. In my entire career, I’ve never seen something that has generated as much interest as Starlink Aviation. Consumers are asking for this product by name, which separates its revolutionary quality from something like GPS. When GPS first came onto the scene, there were at least a dozen OEMs offering GPS solutions. While Starlink certainly has competition, Starlink is the only one being specifically asked for by the principals and passengers. In this way, it is comparable to the release of the first iPhone in 2007. While there were other cell phones around, there was nothing that had the capabilities or the name recognition of the iPhone.

This encouragement, combined with their commitment to address certain issues expressed within the field of aviation, we are profoundly excited to begin our relationship with Starlink. In fact, this dealership has resulted in a single week of sales for Pro Star that has exceeded anything else I have experienced in the past 25 years. This is, of course, extremely encouraging. Starlink has come a long way since April, and we can’t wait to see how they continue to grow and change as the years go on.

Throughout the three-day course of the 2023 NBAA BACE, held at the Las Vegas Convention Center, Pro Star played a role in some significant updates for business aviation. While I was not personally present this year, Pro Star had both of its regional sales managers, as well as the general manager, in attendance. Despite the smaller than normal attendance contingency in Las Vegas, it still had one of its most, if not the most, productive conventions yet.

First and foremost, Pro Star had one of the largest news announcements in the company’s history. On the first day of the convention, Dassault Aviation announced its partnership with Pro Star as the Northeast US authorized service facility. In a Pro Star Aviation first, this announcement was at the static display instead of the exhibit hall. This was the first time that Pro Star Aviation has had such a large and impactful announcement to unveil during the NBAA national convention.

In addition to the major Dassault Aviation announcement, Pro Star also was one of a very select few MROs to participate in the Starlink Aviation Flight Demonstration of its now certified Business Aviation connectivity solution. At last year’s convention in Orlando, Starlink opted not to attend, instead choosing to announce their involvement in the business aviation field on Twitter (now X). This year, however, not only was Starlink in attendance, but they were ready to demonstrate the technological leaps they had taken with their LEO (low-earth orbit) satellites.

Unlike most experiences with in-flight connectivity announcements and demonstrations, it not only lived up to, but exceeded our expectations. Not just with our team, however, but nearly every professional who was able to experience it for themselves. According to those who experienced the demonstration, it is now comparable to connectivity on the ground. It seems that for the first time ever, in-flight connectivity is really starting to catch up with the expectations of the flying public.

The demonstration also took place at the airport rather than the exhibition hall. This is a trend that many exhibitors are seemingly adopting in this post-pandemic era. Typically, exhibitors will have a large contingency at both the static display and the trade show hall. Now, however, like Pro Star, most major aircraft manufacturers were primarily all at the static display with little or no exhibition hall presence. It is clear that change is in the air for aviation conventions.

One of the biggest signs of this change is reflected in the lack of Gulfstream Aerospace’s attendance. Gulfstream, which was once the cornerstone of the NBAA convention, decided not to attend the trade show at all this year. This move from Gulfstream may very well be a significant bellwether of the future to come. The decision is likely due to the high level of competing goals that are present at a national trade show. Unlike more regional shows, national conventions have a lot of interests to attend to that can be bogged down in all the noise. So, while the Las Vegas NBAA was still well attended, with over 20,000 attendants and 800 exhibitors, there seems to be a shift taking place in priorities for business aviation.

Regional trade shows are still very well attended and are likely to only increase as this shift continues to alter the landscape of aviation conventions. Only people with a need to attend are there and often have an invested interest in the business affairs of the show. Because of this, it is much easier for attendees and exhibitors alike to see a real return on their investment. It is for these reasons, as well as the real-time changes noted by our sales team this year, that I believe these smaller and more focused conventions will be the future of trade shows for the aviation industry.

In April of this year, I discussed the reservations I had with certain unanswered questions relating to the Starlink system designed for Business Aviation. In the months following, we have seen updates that have clarified some of my concerns. No update, however, has been quite as massive as the announcement made earlier this month. Both Starlink Aviation and Nextant Aerospace have been approved by the FAA to install their connectivity solution on all Gulfstream G650 aircraft.

While the STC approval is a huge success for Starlink and Nextant, it has become clear that Gulfstream has certain reservations about this recent authorization. In a Maintenance and Operations letter released on September 15, the company addressed these concerns to all Gulfstream operators. In the letter, they outline three specific points for operators to be aware of. First, Gulfstream discusses structural integrity: “Incorporation of this third-party STC will impact the fuselage structure with respect to the antenna installation; Structural Warranty may not apply to the affected areas of this modification”.

The following reservations both revolve around the lack of control Gulfstream will have over installation data and design. First, Gulfstream’s “technical operations and engineering teams will not have the data or ability to support any repairs…that may arise with the STC upon installation or afterward”. Similarly, their final concern focuses on “hardware and software configuration [which] will be out of Gulfstream’s control”. This means that Gulfstream may not be able to support in-service issues with the third-party installation without potential additional cost.

While Gulfstream may be suspicious of the FAA’s approval of Starlink and Nextant’s solution, it is important to recognize that they are not outright condemning it. In fact, it is quite standard for an aircraft manufacturer to have reservations in the face of a solution that they did not create. It is still an STC approved solution, and not every STC approved solution for all aircraft is always appreciated or validated by the aircraft manufacturer. Their hesitations do not make the STC any less safe or valid of an option for connectivity. In the letter itself, Gulfstream makes it clear that they do not fully disapprove of the solution, stating that they “will continue to work with Starlink to evaluate new technology, and…are committed to validating solutions on [their] aircraft when and if the data [they] gather supports the viability of the product”.

At Pro Star, we are starting to offer proposals for Gulfstreams, specifically G650s. The installations could begin as soon as Q4 2023. Quotes for the G650s can be requested now. Additionally, Gulfstream models G550 & G450, as well as the Bombardier Global Express solutions will become obtainable through the same conduit within the next two to four months. Subsequently, installations for these aircraft will be available for quotations. Since the April blog on Starlink Aviation, the cost of the hardware has remained stable, hovering at $150,000. The monthly cost for the service has also remained the same, ranging from $12,500 to $25,000 a month. Since there is not a formal Dealer Network, questions concerning hardware and service should be directed to Starlink directly. bizjets@spacex.com For aircraft owners looking to install this solution, you can expect the cost of installation to at least match the equipment cost. It could potentially be up to 1.5x the cost of equipment. This is to cover the cost of interior removal and reinstallation, installation labor, the STC, and custom installation kit. Additionally, many aircraft will also require existing equipment to be relocated to accommodate the Starlink terminal installation. All in all, this approval from the FAA is an exciting step forward for Starlink and Nextant. With more models closely following behind the G650s, this could truly be the beginning of a revolution in luxury connectivity for the world of aviation.