IATP Advances APU Pooling Concept

Momentum is building around development of an auxiliary power unit pooling structure within the International Airlines Technical Pool following a series of technical discussions at the organization’s 133rd conference in Malta and supporting insights from key participants shaping the initiative.

The concept, still in an early framework stage, aims to provide airlines with faster access to serviceable auxiliary power units (APU) through a shared inventory model. While industry interest is evident, stakeholders caution that the initiative’s success will depend on resolving complex commercial, contractual and technical challenges, particularly around asset ownership, OEM restrictions and standardization.

At its core, the effort reflects a wider shift in aviation maintenance toward shared, subscription-style access to expensive components driven by ongoing supply chain issues and longer repair times.

APU PRESSURE POINT

The APU pooling venture has emerged against a backdrop of sustained aftermarket strain—participants point to long repair cycles and constrained spare availability as the main drivers.

“We’ve seen a growing issue with long repair times and lack of spares,” said André Filipe Oliveira, chairperson of the International Airlines Technical Pool (IATP) APU Pool Group.

The problem is not limited to complete APUs. Shared components and single missing piece parts are grounding units across multiple fleets. As APU Pool Group Cochair Josh Ashbrook noted: “We have seen entire APUs in the shop, waiting on one little piece, because [the APUs] share some components.”

The discussions in Malta highlighted that while demand for APUs remains stable across most fleet types, availability is increasingly constrained by long lead times and cascading component shortages.

EARLY DEMAND SIGNALS

Initial engagement through IATP member surveys and technical workshops in 2025 suggests interest from both potential users and providers, although the balance between them is evolving.

Ashbrook said the initial objective was to assess the demand rather than define a structured product. “It was primarily an initial gauge of interest—understanding where members stood, whether there was appetite for the concept and identifying potential providers,” he recalled. “We saw strong interest overall.”

He observed that early responses indicated a structural asymmetry in participation, with lessors and associated members more willing to supply assets while airlines remain the primary users. “Currently, it seems to be more from a provider perspective,” Ashbrook said.

Despite this dynamic, the cochairs emphasized that the initiative remains at a foundational stage.

Ashbrook confirmed the group is still in the initial stages of building the framework. Although the concept was well received, the focus is shifting to how it will work in practice—establishing the structure, understanding the constraints and identifying potential providers and their roles.

The team is working on matching demand with the available APU types and setting up a clear governance structure before moving forward.

COMPLEXITY AND CONSTRAINTS

A recurring theme was the technical complexity of APUs and their dependence on multiple subcomponents and shared systems, which can significantly affect availability.

As Oliveira highlighted, APUs cannot be viewed in isolation from broader engine and component ecosystems. “We have seen some interesting cases,” he said. “For example, we have an [Airbus] A330 APU from Honeywell that relies on a component shared with another engine [line replaceable unit (LRU)]. It is just one part, but it is missing across the system. As a result, it is affecting both the engine LRU and the APU LRU because it is the same missing component.”

Lead times remain a critical constraint. Participants consistently cite multimonth delays rather than short-term disruptions. “We’re always talking about lead times measured in months, not weeks,” Oliveira said.

Ashbrook provided a similar assessment based on operational experience across fleets. “If I had to ballpark it, [lead times are] probably around 60 days,” he said. “It changes by APU type. Some are better and some are worse.” He added that even within mature fleets, a single missing part can ground multiple serviceable units, creating bottlenecks that ripple through maintenance operations.

While technical feasibility is increasingly understood, Inside MRO’s discussions with industry participants highlighted that commercial and contractual constraints could ultimately determine the success of any pooling structure.

David Kerr, formerly head of technical procurement and supply chain at Norse Atlantic, said the concept has clear potential within existing pooling structures but would require careful alignment with operational realities.

He noted that APUs are particularly critical for extended-range twin-engine operational performance standards (ETOPS) operations on widebody aircraft, where system reliability directly affects dispatch capability.

“When an APU is inoperative, ETOPS capability may be reduced or not permitted at all, depending on [minimum equipment list] constraints,” he said. “This can lead to significantly longer routing to remain within diversion limits, payload restrictions affecting cargo and in some cases passenger offloads or even flight cancellations if compliance cannot be achieved.”

Kerr pointed out that participation is likely to vary depending on airline fleet strategy and capital structure. Airlines with newer fleets might prefer flexibility over long-term commitments, while smaller operators could benefit most from pooled access.

“There are, however, several vital details still to be addressed,” Kerr added, noting similar existing pooling arrangements. “For example, whether a guaranteed availability option will be offered and whether airlines will be able to join the APU pool on a seasonal basis.”

These questions underscore the need for a flexible commercial model that can accommodate diverse airline operating profiles.

Ashbrook noted that even when airlines have spare units available, contractual restrictions can prevent their use in a pool because OEM agreements typically do not permit that type of asset sharing. These constraints must be addressed early in the pool’s design.

COMMERCIAL FRAMEWORK

From the supplier and aftermarket perspectives, the key challenge is ensuring that pooling structures adequately reflect asset risk, life cycle exposure and maintenance variability.

Brenda Yao, senior vice president for sales and strategy at Global Airtech, said the concept is operationally attractive but must be underpinned by a clear commercial framework.

“The concept is promising,” she said. “It creates a structured platform for members to transact directly, reducing reliance on the open market and simplifying administrative processes. A standardized agreement and pricing framework would further simplify transactions by minimizing negotiations and ensuring consistency across the market.”

She warned that providers face real exposure under a pooling model, particularly in relation to repair costs and asset degradation. “Potential challenges include covering repair costs beyond normal maintenance and the reduction in unit value from accumulated time and cycles without compensation,” Yao said.

She added that participation would depend heavily on whether a balanced pricing structure that accounts for time, cycles and potential repairs can be achieved. “Solely paying an access fee may not reflect the true value of these assets, especially given the variability in repair costs from minor inspections to full overhauls,” Yao said.

Given the complexity, stakeholders agree that the pool should begin with a narrow focus. High‑demand, widely operated APU types—such as those for the Airbus A320, Boeing 737 and 777—are the most likely starting point.

The case for APU pooling appears strong. Operators face mounting pressures, APUs remain in constrained supply, and the operational consequences of unavailability are significant. Vendors and lessors see commercial opportunity, while smaller airlines stand to benefit from increased flexibility and reduced capital exposure.

But the initiative will succeed only if the framework is carefully constructed. Standardization, commercial balance, contractual clarity and digital transparency will be foundational.

The Malta meetings and subsequent interviews show that the industry is aligned on the challenges and committed to addressing them. The next phase will determine whether APU pooling can evolve from a promising concept into a practical, scalable solution for global operators.

If the early momentum continues, IATP’s APU pool could become one of the most significant additions to the organization’s support portfolio in years, offering airlines a new tool to navigate an increasingly complex operational landscape.