ICAO & IATA codes
Thread Starter
ICAO & IATA codes
Would it not be better and more efficient if ICAO and IATA could get together and devise a way of having their codes the same. If they do need to differentiate between 4 letter ICAO and 3 letter IATA this could be achieved by simply adding country code letter (as current) to whatever 3 letter code is chosen. An example of having two completely different codes which confused the passengers was back in the 90s when a Gen Aviation operator was authorised to fly scheduled flights daily northbound from Hervey Bay, Qld to two other Qld Airports. I can't remember where the aircraft (a 6 seater) commenced the journey but it was due to depart Hervey Bay for Bundaberg and onto Gladstone. Great idea but when the operator sent a copy of his schedule (for me as handling agent) and for distribution to to the public the routing was shown with times and only a 3 letter code instead of full names. So what went wrong, he chose the last 3 letters of the ICAO code for advising the public where the aircraft was going. OK, not the brightest thing to do (why not put the full name and not a code) but it ended up with a routing of ??? (can't remember where it started) to HBA, BUD and GLA. Now members of the public could probably know at least some IATA codes but I doubt very many would know the equivalent ICAO code. This schedule to those using the IATA code would be a flight from Hobart to Budapest and on to Glasgow (ICAO YHBA, YBUD, YGLA). These scheduled flights lasted just over a week and only one inbound passenger into Hervey Bay and then the service ended because the expected passengers were just not there. Be interested in your thoughts/reasons why the two codes could not be the same.
I'm letting my prejudice show here as an ATCO, but IATA are a lobby group for airlines, ICAO are the global "regulator" for all of us, ATC, Pilots, Engineeers, Flight Info etc. IATA codes should not be recognition IMO.
IATA holds no weight for anyone who doesn't work for an airline....and many airlines are not part of IATA anyway.
IATA need to align with ICAO by dispensing with their 3 letter codes and adopting the same 4 letter format as ICAO.
IATA holds no weight for anyone who doesn't work for an airline....and many airlines are not part of IATA anyway.
IATA need to align with ICAO by dispensing with their 3 letter codes and adopting the same 4 letter format as ICAO.
Last edited by Una Due Tfc; 1st Jun 2023 at 04:43.
Thread Starter
I definitely agree that both IATA & ICAO codes should be combined (that was the whole point of my post). I'm biased with preferring the IATA code as that was what I used for 90% of my time in aviation. I still think that the majority of people involved in commercial passenger carrying would likely only use IATA codes, Travel Agents, Airline Reservations staff, Passenger Service Airport Staff, Baggage Loaders etc plus of course, the passengers themselves. That said, having both IATA and ICAO codes the same whether they be 3 or 4 letter is the objective and if that was to be the current ICAO codes, then so be it, it would be better than the current double coding. I could go further in saying there should be similar for actual Airlines codes, why are there again separate codes? One last point, a non-IATA Airline can still use an IATA 'approved' code, I worked for quite a few that did exactly that.
Thread Starter
True so I'm guessing it'll never happen then. Good job I'm retired already, so it won't bother me now, but it sure would have made life easier whilst I was working.
They have different target audiences. As has been mentioned, IATA codes are meant for the travel business, for bookings and such and because of that, there are a lot of codes that have no place on the operational side. LON for London for example. It covers the metropolitan area, which is totally irrelevant on the operational side of aviation. There are also a lot of small airports that have an ICAO code and need it, but will never need an IATA code.
Playing devil's advocate and going along with your suggestion(s):
Playing devil's advocate and going along with your suggestion(s):
- The number of available IATA codes is limited by the three letter format. If you simply want to add a country code to it to create a four letter code, you're limited to 26 options (in our alphabet) while there are eight times as many countries around the globe.
- If you want to standardise on ICAO codes, you would need to add several to cover the various metropolitan areas that have their own IATA code, such as LON, but they wouldn't be as intuitive as they are today. Whether there's room in the system for all these extra codes... I don't know. The chance of that being the case is better than adding lots of small airports to the IATA codes list. I reckon that ICAO will have something to say about it though as it would add a bit of confusion to several of their systems.
It would be a bit like changing the Qwerty keyboard - you wouldn't start with it (how about an 'Abcdef' board) but you are stuck with it.
One solution might be to use IATA codes but to add numbers to increase the number of options. This would give 34* ^ 3 = 39,304 options. *exclude 0 & 1.
It is of course easier for most US airports where you add a K (For example Key West is EYW & KEYW). I don't know if you could extend it worldwide so that you added 'E' to any European airport to get the ICAO code - you would have to change all the ICAO codes (see my first point).
Someone told me that in the early nineties ATC switched from IATA to ICAO codes overnight - is this true and if so how did it go?
I have to say that I am pleased that I can type an ICAO code into google - its helped me many a time when browsing PPrune.
One solution might be to use IATA codes but to add numbers to increase the number of options. This would give 34* ^ 3 = 39,304 options. *exclude 0 & 1.
It is of course easier for most US airports where you add a K (For example Key West is EYW & KEYW). I don't know if you could extend it worldwide so that you added 'E' to any European airport to get the ICAO code - you would have to change all the ICAO codes (see my first point).
Someone told me that in the early nineties ATC switched from IATA to ICAO codes overnight - is this true and if so how did it go?
I have to say that I am pleased that I can type an ICAO code into google - its helped me many a time when browsing PPrune.
Thread Starter
I can accept that whichever way it goes will be a lot of changing in systems but isn't that a lot easier now using computers. This morning I was reading a post on another site regarding a Melbourne-Mildura flight. The poster used the codes MEL-MIA which to me (IATA based) would be Melbourne-Miami. Sure Mildura is YMIA for ICAO but YMEL is Melton Airfield, Vic. So the poster has just used the ICAO codes minus the "Y" and come up with a route that has confused both ICAO & IATA 'followers.' Now if both codes were the same, and codes for LONDON (City not Airport) were not required within the ICAO based system, then it wouldn't be needed to be put into ICAO system. Same as YMIA for Melton Airfield would not be needed for the IATA system. I don't see that it would confuse the whole idea if there were various codes that were not being used by one or the other. Specific Airline codes are gradually changing to 3 rather than 2 figures/letters AA to AAL, BA to BAW, for instance), so changes can be made when required. I still say that it would be beneficial to have only one code for each Airport. Maybe as ICAO is an "Governments official" organisation then it would make sense that the ICAO codes are the ones to stay and IATA should just have to agree to use the same codes. I don't suppose it will ever happen as even car manufacturers can't agree on which side of the steering column the windscreen wiper control should be on, but it would be nice if people/organisations/manufacturers could get together and sort things out.
You'll get your knickers in a twist over EGLL is not Luton (it's Heathrow), and EGGW is not Gatwick (it's Luton). Confused the hell out of me for a while first time to the UK and flight planning alternates for Stansted.
