  Leading proposals for Advanced Air Mobility (AAM) recognize the need for
strategic and tactical airspace deconfliction, where the need for coordination
appears in different forms and nuances. One recurring element is the use of
pre-defined airways or corridors, a natural way to create order, with proven
success from the conventional, manned, Air Traffic Management (ATM). But, while
ATM is evolving to 4D Trajectory-Based Operations, when we apply the ATM
principles to very dense and potentially more complex operations such as AAM,
we have to consider their limitations in such demanding new environment. The
requirement of following circulation corridors most often increase flight
distance and inevitably create bottlenecks, hence we explore the hypothesis of
not using corridors, testing such option via a simple and scalable simulation
model. Other motivations for comparing different forms of traffic coordination
are redundancy and diversity, which have potential to increase system safety.
Relying on a single method to maintain traffic separation of course would not
be allowed in practice. However, the concepts that we have seen so far leave a
gap between two very distinct and co-existing methods: one, cooperative and
centered on a ground-based Provider of Services for UAM (PSU), and another,
which is mostly non-cooperative and independent, centered on the individual
aircraft, commonly referred to as Detect-And-Avoid (DAA). This duality achieves
a welcomed diversity, however presents several points for improvement.
  In-between these opposite methods, this paper analyzes the performance of an
airborne cooperative method to coordinate traffic which is capable of safely
solving conflicts of multiple aircraft (more than two) and achieve higher
efficiency than DAA alone, thus with potential for being an alternative or a
live fallback for ground-based traffic coordination.
