'Failure is not an option': Decarbonising the airport with TCR's Kristof Philips

We want to make this podcast series a two-way conversation, so let's hear from you. Whether you're trying to recruit and retain sufficient quality employees, or maybe you're just trying to find enough charges for your electric GSE fleet, whatever your dilemma, no problems too big or too small, we want to hear from you. Text us on +447701 275834. Welcome to the GHI podcast, I'm Sophie Skin Jones. I'm Max Gosney. This podcast series is your go-to source for insights on the ground-handling industry from the people behind the operations. On today's episode, we'll be meeting with Christoph Phillips, divisional CEO for airport solutions at TCR. We'll be finding out how Christoph and his team at TCR are helping airports on the journey to decarbonisation, electrification of the apron, and the role that GSE pooling plays in facilitating a greener airport. We'll discover why failure is not an option, and why teamwork and leadership and accountability amongst all airport stakeholders are so vital to achieving the greener future that our aviation supply chain desires. Enjoy the episode. Well, let me start first by explaining a bit what I do within TCR, and what the department that I oversee is actually managing. So the TCR airport solutions is a newly created, let's say, entity. And we focus with a dedicated team on supporting airports and airlines to help them decarbonise. So we support them on their decarbonising journey. And what that means is actually we try to put in perspective what are the challenges everyone has, and what are the opportunities and the solutions that may exist or need to be developed within this in order to support this transition. So when you ask, for example, what do you do at NTO, and how do you work with an airline that says, look, I want to go green. What are my requirements? What are my needs? I think what is really fundamentally important is, of course, like what everyone does in a pooling setup. Because again, I think I'm not saying decarbonisation requires pooling. I think it's an enabler, so a catalyst. So as most of the listeners will know is, of course, that there is no standard across electrical GSE. Depending on the battery type, the battery technology you choose, you may have different communication protocols, which may require different chargers in order to allow optimal charging or even the ability to charge. So one of the benefits we have seen is that, of course, by going into a pooling setup, you make a choice on GSE and you make a choice in the longer term on what technology you're going to use and what battery types you're going to apply and operate on the airport. So that means that when the airport wants to invest in infrastructure, you align a long-term investment with a long-term vision, a stable long-term vision on the requirement and the need from the community. This is very different from what you see today, because if one handler brings a certain brand of GSE to the airport, that will have a certain consequence. It can be low voltage, high voltage, a certain size of battery. And of course, when that handler may, unfortunately, step out, lose the contract, whatever, and someone else steps in, they may choose a different brand of the same asset family. But that, as a result, may lead to the requirement being different. It could be going from low voltage to high voltage. It could be going from lithium to lead-acid. Lead-acid to lithium is probably more likely. But these are the challenges that airports have, because as long as that remains a variable, it will be always very difficult to explain to yourself, how am I going to defend a long-term investment business case if I do not have the security that the need from the market, from the ramp, will always be the same so that my investment supports that need. That's fundamental. That's the first step. So, in NTO is a very concrete case of this. The choice was made. They're, of course, building a brand new one, which is an additional opportunity, which is easier than a brown field operation that are most of our customers. But in this case, they made a deliberate choice to say, we go all electric. We will make the right investments in infrastructure. And so, the next question we got from when we went through the process and we spoke with different stakeholders is, but what's your preference on brands or what's your preference on numbers and so on? It's the same principle, basic principle applies. You start with your engagement standards, with your flight schedules, and it results in a number of assets. After you have looked at the number of assets, you start assessing the infrastructure that's available. You start looking at how much power can I get available at the airport and how much power do I get at the various charging locations that have been identified. If out of every source of power, let's put it very simple, you can get 10 kilowatts. Then, of course, it will take a lot longer to charge 100 kilowatt battery than when you would get 60 kilowatts out. So, it's really important to understand what is physically available. And you start from the physical constraints. So, typically, people can choose. You could say, okay, but I can just add capacity. One thing we have found out by working with airports and on various projects is the cost to increase a watt peak in capacity at an airport, that is the massive cost on electrification. The different choice on battery in an asset, or the different choice from high or low voltage, it has a cost compared to the GSE cost, I agree. But on the bigger picture, when you look at what's the cost of going green, meaning investing in substations requiring more power at the source, at the airport, having different technologies, the big cost is the infrastructure decision you have to make. So, we typically try to start from what is available at the airport and try to optimize by adapting the GSE mix, setup and standards. Once you know your kilowatts supply at the airport, interesting what you say around use that to guide your fleet procurement and the items that you're purchasing, how do you then use that to select between TLD, Textron, Oshkosh, the many myriad of different OEMs that are out there with expert equipment that they'll portray as being the best in class. So, how do you use that information then to guide your fleet procurement? So, what we have is, of course, we have mapped out all the, let's say, manufacturers, the different product types they have and all the alternatives they have on batteries. And what those batteries mean in sense of capacity, in charging protocols, in communication technology and so on and so on, or in can integration, all those kind of things. And so, what we would typically do is, okay, if this is the constraint, then I'm giving an example and it is really complicated because it is not just, is there 60 kilowatts and how many assets do I need to charge? It's about how many charging spots I have and how many parking spots I have, because often the parking spot is also a charging spot. So, sorry to make that sidestep, but I think it's really to demonstrate that complexity. So, but answering your question, how do we select? First of all, we have an entire range of products, let's say for a loader, where we have brands that we feel and that our customers feel are safe, qualitative and compliant to the standards that all of us expect. So, that's the pool of equipment we will always choose from. And to be fair, you have named a lot and all of those people for sure fit within that picture. But you could, I don't have to tell you, of course, but there is plenty of new players coming into the market on some categories, because electrical equipment is slightly different from the diesel. I'm not saying there are brand new OEMs, but you see sub players coming with sub solutions. And so, it can seem attractive, but we just want to make sure that they are complying with the standards, with the safety standards and everything else. So, that's the first topic. And does that pool fleet, then, is it beneficial to have a mix and match between different manufacturers according to the unit and the batch type? Or should it be homogenous or produced by one manufacturer? But the reality is, like I said, it's a balancing exercise with a lot of variables. So, the driver is like, and again, this is our assessment. This is my personal assessment, but also the one from T-Share Air Prosolutions is the big ticket to the big cost item is having to upgrade your infrastructure or adding what peak at airport level is extremely costly to the community, because in the end, someone has to pay for this, the airline, the passenger, whoever. So, that's the dominant determinator. Then the second one is, how often can I charge and what is my flight schedule? And so, what's the opportunity I have to charge the fleet with a certain use? And that typically is going to determine the choices on battery sizes. We'll also have to see what comes out for the different families and how do we standardize, because you rightfully asked the question, how do we standardize where possible, as much as possible, because of course, it brings then other benefits. It's about understanding of battery technologies, maintenance quality, spare parts, backup units. There is a lot of benefit in standardizing. But is it realistic to assume that for every single situation, you'll have one OEM or one brand doing all the equipment? Rarely, that's rarely the outcome of the most optimal mix. It doesn't mean it can't be done. That's not what I'm saying, but it's rarely the most optimal mix. And because it's really important when choices are made, it's typically not done on this as it is better than this. It is to do with the constraints I'm trying to explain during our conversation now. It's really about how do I make sure that I have the most optimal infrastructure setup that allows the majority of the fleet to be charged in the most optimal and cost-effective way. And optimal in time, but also optimal in cost. The reason why I say in time is of course, as you can imagine, if you charge something lead-acid powered or lithium low-voltage powered, it will just, it's chemistry and physics, it will take longer to charge a low-voltage or lead-acid solution with the same battery capacity. Just if you would compare like for like all the same battery capacities, I know lithium high is typically higher and so on, but assume they're all 100 kilowatts, then it will take longer to charge a lead-acid and a lithium low-voltage, then a high-voltage. So is that a problem? It depends. If you have enough infrastructure and there is time to charge, no. But if you want to make use of the same charger a lot more during the day, because you have a constraint in space, then you want to charge quicker because then that charger is available for more assets. And so this is where it becomes complicated and where you really need a party that understands use, battery technology, infrastructure technology and can see the bigger picture. And I think that is where the challenge lies. And we've been doing this now on various occasions and to be very transparent, every time we learn more and it's by doing that you learn and it's by engaging with all the stakeholders that we find out and that we can optimize. So it's a joint journey together with airports and stakeholders. And when you're engaging with those stakeholders, can you summarize the perspective of some of the airport authorities you're speaking to, where they see this electrification and the infrastructure agenda at the moment? What's driving them? I've seen a shift. Let's say that up till for short pre-COVID, there's a period pre-COVID and post-COVID. So pre-COVID, we talked about it, but nothing really happened. We didn't see a lot of traction. Post-COVID, the world has literally changed in every aspect. We see it in how people are engaged. We see it how we attract people, how we retain people. The main thing that we see is actually that in post-COVID, there are two moments in that post-COVID period. So immediately after, it was typically a position where the airport kind of said to the handlers and the community, "I want you to go electric." And I'll foresee the infrastructure, but then the choice on battery, on technology, on timing, lies with the handler. And what we see today is actually that airports are realizing more and more that by doing this, actually they may not achieve their targets because the airport has a certain ambition to be decarbonized by a certain amount of time or by a certain date. Of course, there is an economic reality for handlers, for airlines that say, "Look, I just invested in a new diesel asset. I'm not going to replace the diesel asset. And I'm happy to do this, but maybe 12 years down the line." And for others, it may be, "Look, my fleet is very old. I have an opportunity to do it, so they may do it quicker." But if you allow everyone individually to follow their own strategy, it will be very difficult to achieve the airport communities strategy, which is at airport level, we want to achieve certain things. This is one. The second is something I start introducing in the discussions with airports. It's, again, a personal opinion, not necessarily a factual statement, but I believe in this. It is the fact that if you allow someone else to choose, that person would logically, myself included, choose the most cost-optimal solution. I am convinced, and that means what I'm trying to say is that most of the handlers will typically choose for a low-voltage lithium solution. It brings the benefits of lithium, but it's also more cost-efficient. It's cheaper to have a low-voltage battery than a high-voltage battery. Again, if you take a step back and you're an airport and I would invest my money in infrastructure, then I would actually prefer to set a standard to high-voltage, because it means I can charge fast. I can use the same infrastructure a lot more effectively. And so I'm actually optimizing the use of my high-invested capital, my capital cost. So there is a bit of a trade-off today where I would probably say airports are still in the mindset you solve the problem, and they realize it's difficult that way. But they're not yet in the mindset where they say, I fully understand that actually allowing other people to choose a battery technology is actually indirectly going to affect my overall cost to get green significantly. And so what I would hope by having those conversations like a podcast or like have presentations or engagement with people is make everyone aware that I think if at an airport level you can convince the handlers in the community to go for a high-voltage solution on the majority of the fleet, it will bring a significant cost reduction on the total cost of going green. And so what the airport could save on total investment infrastructure investment at airport level, maybe they could use part of it to subsidize and support the handler community and the airline community to make a slightly different choice on battery. But the net result, again, in my opinion, will be significantly cheaper. It sounds more from what you described as a more entrepreneurial partnership on the cost sharing, the investment sharing to ensure that we're getting the best technology in the long run implemented there at the gate. It's mainly ensuring that everyone has the right level of understanding. I think very few people in the community actually really understand what it's about. What are the cost drivers and I mean total cost drivers for the community to go green. And the problem is that everyone ideally would know the cost drivers for their own niche or their own operation, and rarely they do also have that information. Why? Because it's extremely complicated and it's not black and white and it's not always like I said, there are so many parameters. If you have access to something that's very close to you, it doesn't make, it's one element, but if you have to drive 25 minutes to your charger and your battery is always 10% out just going in and back, you lose a lot of your capacity and efficiency. So it is not a simple exercise and you do need knowledgeable parties to bring together the handover view, the airline view and the airport view to see the total cost and to see the most optimal route forward. And this is fundamentally what is missing today because it is still bottom up. Handler says I bring in an asset because you asked me to do it, airport, airport put me a charger, airport adds a charger, we run out of capacity. So what do we do? Do we say you get it, you don't get it, we upgrade the infrastructure, but what do we do with the infrastructure choice? And so it's because it's still a bottom up approach. I think it will slow down the process, it will make it more costly. And I think what is critical for the success of decarbonisation in this sector is let's do a top down. And top down doesn't mean push and enforce, it means take ownership, share information, increase understanding across different stakeholders. It's the only way you can do it. - It does attain not as individuals. - Yeah, I know it sounds fluffy. I know it sounds fluffy, but the reality is if you don't understand what your statement means to the profitability and the economic viability of the operation of your stakeholders, too often I hear from people, this handler does not want to follow and they're making our lives complicated. But look, if you were them, you would do exactly the same because you're asking them something they cannot afford and they cannot recharge to the airline and the airline would rightfully or not rightfully, but again, would not accept this. So I don't think people, they fall back in, this is what I want. And so others that are not following are annoying, complicated or blocking. I think we have to change this. You will not solve it by explaining why people are not doing what you want. Understand why people can't do it. And once you understand, you can engage and find solutions because there will be pluses, there will be minuses. And probably the most important statement I typically make is you have to understand electrification is not about technology. Electrification means disruptive change. You're bringing new technology, but you're also bringing a change in how people have to operate because they have to now find a charger, find a replacement asset, fuel is just like you fuel it up and 10 minutes later you're up and running for a day again. So it disrupts on the way you operate, but also it disrupts the way you make money and where you incur costs across different stakeholders in a different way. So you have to do the exercise that way, or you will never ever do it in a constructive, positive way. And it will be about battle, confrontation. And in the worst case, you have to enforce it. But as most people know, enforcement is rarely the best way forward. TCR, your GFC Solutions Partner, trusted by airports, airlines and ground handlers around the world. From leasing to maintenance, we help operations run smoothly and sustainably. Where I do sense that collaboration is in your work at New Terminal 1 and we had Kevin and Marissa on stage with us in our America's Conference there in Orlando. What sort of lessons can the wider community learn from that partnership you're forging? Because it does seem that there's a really good connection between what you're trying to do there in terms of managing the assets and the airport's perspective. I think it's, again, there is a distinction to be made between greenfield and brownfield, but let's save now for a greenfield because this is the most unique opportunity for most airports because you can design to a large extent. And when I say you can design to a large extent exactly what you need, even this was not true. Because in NTO, also you're constrained by this is the surface of space you have. And this is the power that comes in. And then there are economical constraints. So yes, they had a lot more choice or a lot more opportunity to do the right thing from day one than when someone is confronted with a brownfield setup. But even in the greenfield, you will be confronted with constraints and you need to have that reflection. And I think if Marisa would probably tell you the same, I think the lessons learned also from our side in that project is typically when you build a terminal, you start thinking about the terminal and all the surfaces that are surrounding this around security, baggage hall, scanning, all those kind of things. And it's once there is a building and a physical location, people start thinking about what do we do on the ramp? And then they start thinking about GSE handling and so on. And it's more at the end of the process. I think the learning we have is we found out that if people do a design pure on numbers and let's say ratios, typically people would say, if I have for every five electrical assets, I need one charger. I'm not saying it's right. I'm not saying it's wrong. Again, for all the reasons I've mentioned before, if there is enough power, it can be right. If there is not enough power coming out of it, it may be completely wrong. The choices that you make on I need, if you have one charger for every five assets, but then you find out there are 20 chargers installed, but only, let's say, five are masters and all rest are slaves. That means that the power that comes into the master is now divided by the number of slaves you have. So yes, you may have 20 chargers, but they all have like 12 kilowatt lift. And so it takes you two days to charge a loader. I'm saying something. And so again, operationally, that doesn't make sense because you would need more equipment to compensate for the long charging times, but then you don't have any space to park them. And so the learning is, I think, where you have the possibility, don't see infrastructure as something isolated. GSC will be an important consumer of infrastructure and energy. So involve the right people from the start, then you can make the right assessment on speed, capacity, distribution, because where do you put them and where you don't put them? Often people put them on the parking spots, but it means that you have on top of charging planning, you need to start parking planning because a parking spot typically is not linked to the logic of optimized use of a charger. Someone just wants to leave it there until they need it again, but you don't want to block that space for other assets to be charged. So by making that simple choice, because it's space efficient, you include, you complicate a lot the software requirement you have behind it, because now it becomes charging planning and asset rotation planning. Yeah. necessarily negative. It's just the reality is space is constrained at an airport. So typically, you'll end up in such a situation, but where you can avoid it, keep it simple. That's the main essential. Indeed. Now, one thing we noted from Marissa's comments and Kevin as well, I think that level of personal investment they've got in making it right and perfect. And I think Marissa was struggling to sleep with worrying about where those charging points were in the right place. But how important is that to have a leadership team who have that kind of personal commitment to delivering to a really high standard in what they're developing? Aviation in every project, I think just having a team of people that believes and wants to deliver. I can say this for NTO, but I can say this for most, if not every single project that we have worked on and our customers work on to be very fair. If you have a team that wants to do great, then you'll struggle to fail and you'll find solutions. If you have a team that is just ticking the box and trying to comply, then it typically results in lack of ownership, in lack of accountability. And it will mean that when it goes wrong, the first thing that people will do is finger point to each other. I think what we were able to do with NTO, and again, also with other customers, but NTO in this specific case is we really have an aligned view on failure is not an option. Not for TCR, not for NTO, and not for the community. And so we have a personal leadership investment that says, whatever happens, we will make this work. And that means that you're very solution oriented. And when problems occur, because they do occur constantly, you're in a mindset of finding solutions rather than saying, look, you told me it was white, now it turns black. And then you spend more time in finding why it's black now. No, it doesn't matter why it's black. Reality, it is black. So let's focus on getting the black something that's fine. And when it's fine, you can focus on all the other topics. Also in preparation of a goal life, for example, it's something I say to my teams is, I'm a control freak, I know. I want to check and test literally everything. So I know, and I keep telling them, look, get those charters and when the assets are delivered, I don't even care if it's up and running, just plug them in. Do they physically fit? Does the communication work? Is the software up to date? Test literally everything you can do without being in a live environment up front. And yes, you'll, most of the things will work. And that's really nice to hear that it works. But when you go live, you'll have by definition anyway, plenty of problems to deal with. So remove from the start upfront, all the recurring volume things you can remove. Because if one charger doesn't communicate, because you didn't test the software version, because technically the software may be the right one, but the version is not upgraded to the last update, these kind of details, imagine you go live and then 60 charters, all the assets cannot charge. That's like an immensely difficult problem to solve life in the operation, but you can avoid this by doing it upfront. And so that's why the devil is in the detail in these projects. Whereas, again, if it was a diesel asset, you bring it on. If it's not running, you put fuel in and it runs. And it's that simple to solve. But here, there are also very clear agreements on who's doing what in such a setup, because with electrification, you have a charger. And typically charges are installed by someone. And then who does the maintenance on the charger? And who does the maintenance on the GSC? And if the asset is not charging, is it now because of the maintenance company of the charger didn't do it? Is it a charger that's not working? And should we call person A, B, C or D? But you have to avoid this, because this is an absolute disaster in the mindset of operational excellence. In the end, the operation doesn't care about who's wrong. The operation cares about it has to work. And so it's really thinking through the processes, really thinking through accountability. So I do believe when you go, for example, for a infrastructure setup, go for a one stop shop. Because you do not want to end up in the discussion where it's not charging. Okay, is it the software? Is it a manufacturer of the charger? In the end, you want someone to say, it's my problem, I'll deal with it. And then in the background, that person will deal with whoever was in depth responsible for software, hardware, or anything else. But you do not want the operation to be affected by a game between people where people say, it's not me under the warranty, they have not plugged it in correctly. I can tell you, there's a billion, a billion different stories on why people find excuses why it's working or not. But it doesn't matter. It has to work. That's the principle. It's operational excellence. Yeah, you've got to own those problems. Failure is not an option. I like them. We'll have to get posted up here at GHI headquarters with that ahead of the annual in three weeks. Christoph, you mentioned the difficulty level between Greenfield and Brownfield Airport sites. How much more difficult is this at a Brownfield heritage airport? I think the complexity is the two main complexities I see for Brownfield. There are many more, but the two main ones is you have an existing GC fleet. So you can't just say, this is the most optimal choice you have to keep in mind reality. And the reality means age of fleet economics, ability to change. And the second challenge is, because it's an up and running environment, the impact any choice on infrastructure improvement or upgrade has on the operation. We've been working, the pooling in Luton is fully, has been running for many years. We're now going into the phase of fully electrified pooling. But it means investments need to be done in order to bring power, as I said, power to the location where it needs to be used. And that can be at the gate, it can be at different charging locations. But it means you need to open up the ramp, because you need to pull cables. And doing this in a live environment is extremely complicated. Just doing normal building works for an airport is a headache. Imagine that you have to start opening up every single area to pull cables and so on and so on. So this makes it significantly more complicated. Again, there are alternatives you could use from the bridge and so on. So it's not always the worst case, but the reality is upgrading infrastructure comes at a great cost and comes at a great disruption to the airport. So that combined with already congestion, cramped space, risk of incidents and accidents. It's a very complicated balancing exercise for a brownfield operation. But if it's sold through correctly and you can minimize the requirements. So for example, using mobile batteries at night, you charge mobile batteries, I'm giving a simple example, and you release the power during the day. It may mean that you can get away with a lower requirement in watt peak. So rather than having everything in the morning on in a plug, which may say for watt peak, a megawatt peak requirement, you by actually charging the batteries at night at the mobile batteries and bringing them to the stands during the day may reduce it with 50%. We have seen in two airports where we brought it down with 40 to 60% the watt peak just by balancing between night and day or balancing between peak and off peak use of GSE equipment. Because it's always the same. All the equipment when you want it during the day, it's in use. So you cannot charge. And whenever it comes available, it's typically at the end of the day. Then there is no sun and many airports have invested in solar power. So unless they have battery packs and everything else, it's going to be complicated to balance this. And you will lose out on the benefit of having the requirements aligned with the production that is available. And so these are all the things that I would say are coming into play. We've talked a lot about electric today. How sure are we that electric is the cure all? It's all done and dusted. Everything should be lithium electric powered and there's no place for anything else. And I like the question because for me, most of the discussions we have, people start with the word electrification. I think the ambition everyone has is decarbonisation. And decarbonisation can be achieved in different ways. So electrification is just one of those. Important to know is I think you can do things even without doing the drastic stuff. And something simple can be HVO. And we see this more and more being introduced in the operation in the day-to-day. I think a lot of our customers actually are probably running most of their equipment on HVO today. So this is a fast trend. But again, considering the growth and the demand for HVO and what is limited available in the end, it's a product that's not that massively available in the market. It may mean that at a certain moment today, it's still competitively priced. But if production will not ramp up, it may be that actually it becomes more expensive. And so we need to keep monitoring the reality. Because of course, everyone wants to be green, but it has to be economically viable at the same time. So HVO is an alternative, which is of little impact to the airport and the community directly. But it helps. And of course, the hydrogen or even within electrification, alternative technologies like sodium batteries and so on, which is different from lithium, will bring some change. So hydrogen, we have done quite some tests in different airports like Schiphol with the GPU in Bristol with the EastJet and different stakeholders and Bristol Airport. And the technology is quite mature for the GEC. So the problem doesn't necessarily lie in the technology. The problem lies in the production cost of the hydrogen itself. According to our own calculations, we believe that as if we would have a structural pricing point below 6 euros per kilogram for hydrogen, then in most cases, it could become economically viable to do. It should also stay where possible below the 0.2 kilograms per kilowatt hour in production. So when you produce hydrogen, you want to limit to the fullest the impact it has in production of carbon. Because one of the things that is interesting is when you talk about electricity, there are many countries that actually, for example, are coal based in their production for electricity. The CO2 emission in producing the electricity is higher than the CO2 they can save by not running the diesel. So it's electrification in that sense, if your ambition is really reduction of carbon footprint, the right way forward. Interesting. So you may think you're going greener in that environment, but you are actually a net increase in carbon emission, potentially from going electric. I don't want to say it's more of a philosophical discussion because it's not. But it's more a bit, is it my door or your door, or my garden or your garden? If you take the net footprint of the solution, yes, if I run a diesel asset, I have exhaust and CO2 and NOx on my airport. If tomorrow I run electric, I do not have that on my airport. But if the exhaust generated by producing the kilowatts needed to run that instead of the diesel that you would burn is higher than the country, the world, net is actually getting worse. So you can call it philosophical, you can call it rational, I don't know. For me, it is just, I don't think it's realistic to go into that level of detail for every decision you make, I think it is important that everyone within their own domains keeps making steps forward. And I think it's the obligation of governments to make sure that when they produce electricity, that it's in the cleanest way possible. You can't solve the problems for everyone, so you have to make sure you solve and take ownership of your own problems and your own challenges. And if everyone does that, then overall it will evolve in the right direction, that's for sure. We love some philosophy here on the GHI podcast, so I'm going to continue that very important, my role next sweater and get my pipe out and just ask you then, what's the future for diesel? I mean, does it have a future? I just note from TCR, it runs some really interesting research where you found I think 60% of stakeholders thought there's a high risk in the next sort of three to five years that diesel fleets might be banned or have to be disposed of. Where are we going with diesel? There's no black and white answer. The reality is that we see some trend changes. So I think, and I'm now referring more to commercial vehicles, but of course typically what happens in the commercial vehicle business is then transposed into aviation and other sectors and businesses. So in the commercial vehicle business, we do see, we had like brands like Volvo and Mercedes and BMW, then there were like out of 23rd, I don't remember exactly, but they were saying you can't even produce a new diesel powered engine anymore. Today you do hear that they're saying maybe we should not be like that imperative about it and we should maybe make it 2032 or 35. So I think there is, and that's honestly, I think is a good thing. Even though I'm a big fan of course of decarbonisation, for sure in my role, but it's more, you also need to have a certain level of realism in this. It's not because technology exists that financially it is reasonable, I think. And again, I'm getting a bit more philosophical, but I think it is sometimes a trade-off between, of course, the environment is absolute priority and absolutely important. And we have a personal obligation to make sure that we contributed this. But at the same time, I think it is also our obligation to make sure that many people can travel, because by people traveling, you open up the world, people will understand each other better, people become wider in their perspectives, they will understand, put in perspective differences between people. So I think we also have an obligation to make it as accessible as possible to everyone. So it is a balancing exercise between how do I keep it affordable so that it can reach many people and how do I make it 100% green? And I personally, again, it's a personal opinion, believe that's the balance that you need to strike. And there is no right and wrong, because both are, in my opinion, equally important. But I think you need to balance those two, because if it is going to be only for the rich and limited few that can travel, then I don't think it really makes sense. Then probably the cost of pollution is way too high compared to the benefit it brings to the community. But again, I'm a bit in my fillers of commut, but that's what I feel. Thank you. We feel enlightened. That was some good philosophy there. Thank you, Kristof. Just finally, to wrap up, you obviously have run and are running some really exciting projects there, New Terminal 1. This is a really in-demand topic, and I'm sure there's lots of talk going on with yourself and customers at other airports. Can you tell us anything about future projects that we might see that you're working on? Appreciate some things that are confidential and commercially sensitive, but what does the immediate future hold, and what will we see from airports around the world? I think what we noticed is, and we touched upon it in the previous question, was more, if you would have asked me four years ago, where do you see most of your projects around decarbonisation being pooling, being mobile solutions, power solutions, I would have always said Europe, because they were spearheading, and then they still are in the lead, that's for sure. But to my surprise, but a pleasant surprise, I see actually different regions catching up, and I would not be surprised that some of this region would even bypass any ambition. Europe quite soon. Of course, it's a wrong statement to say, just talk about regions as a region or a continent. If we say America or the US, the US on its own is not just a country, depending if you go to the north, to the south, to the east, you will find a completely dynamic and vision towards electrification and diesel use. I always joke, and it's a stereotype, of course, but if you go to the south, they will probably tell you, "Do you have a bigger engine and a more powerful engine because they like it?" And when you go to other areas, they will say, "How do I avoid having a diesel engine at all?" So it's a bit stereotyped and cliche, but what is interesting is that the dynamic globally has changed. So where Europe was spearheading and leading, they are still today, but I do believe other regions like Asia, Pacific and US are catching up strongly. And we see this also in the opportunities and the customer portfolio we're supporting. Thank you, Christoph. Well, we're really excited to continue this conversation with you. You're joining us at Amsterdam for the GHI annual. We'll be talking about how we tackle infrastructure challenges and connectivity at airports. So very much looking forward to talking some more then. For now, thank you very much for your time on today's pod, and we'll see you in Amsterdam very soon. GSE to life, supporting charging as a service in their vision for a green airport. TCR introduces the future of ground support to today's operations.