So in the US, there are 4,476 LPV procedures and 1549 ILS and probably every runway with an ILS has an LPV to the same runway. There is probably an exception somewhere, but the airlines have not seen it worthwhile to equip with WAAS.
I flew an appproach in the cockpit of an ERJ one year ago and they flew an LNAV by hand (because they had to, not for fun). The video seems to concur 
Emir wrote:
I guess there’s some initiative of Eurocontrol for introducing RNAV approaches (including LPV) to the main European airports.
No, the initiative (and lots of money) comes from the European GNSS Agency (GSA). Guess where the GSA is based… :)
CAT3 GPS?
Not likely anytime soon. ILS rules the world…
I think it’s a chicken and egg problem. As long as there is no carrot for the airlines, they won’t upgrade. Once the RNAV approaches are in place, you can start having a conversation about shutting down the expensive ILS, then all of a sudden it comes to the realm of the possible.
For the most part, Air Carrier aircraft are not equipped with WAAS TSO C145/146 receivers. A very small minority are, proving there is always an exception to the rule. RNAV (GPS) approaches may have multiple minima including LNAV, LNAV/VNAV and LPV or LP. The LPV and LP require a WAAS TSO C145/146 receiver. Air Carrier aircraft may fly RNAV (GPS) approaches with LNAV or LNAV/VNAV procedures using Baro-VNAV for vertical guidance. These are part of the RNP Apch Nav Spec. Most may also fly RNAV (RNP) type approaches which also use Baro VNAV for vertical guidance and are part of the RNP AR Apch Nav Spec.A very few air carrier can also fly GLS approaches which use LAAS receivers and uses the LAAS corrected GPS for vertical guidance, but there are only a few such approaches world wide and the technology has yet to demonstrate its full capabilities.
Also, there is a major deviation in naming of approaches which is intended to totally confuse the subject. The US pioneered RNAV approaches, but ICAO has adopted new terminology for their approach names. The US will not go along with this and will keep its current naming convention. So RNAV (GPS) will be renamed in the rest of the world as RNP. The US is adopting the PBN equipment box that defines the Nav Spec used for the approach and any requirements beyond the basic, such as RF.
Airliners (and bizjets with Collins and similar kit) can fly a “virtual ILS” anywhere where an IAP is published.
They can fly them to a Greek island which has just an NDB IAP. The airliner will ask on the radio for whatever the published IAP is, but they will actually fly the synthetic version from their FMS.
That is how one used to fly an RNAV IAP with a KLN94 which was not approved for GPS approaches 
So a non-WAAS airliner asking for an RNAV IAP will actually be flying the “synthetic ILS” on FMS guidance. Unless it has a 99 year old UK CAA examiner in the jump seat in which case they will be hand flying the SDFs while making “no ice” callouts every 1000ft
Peter wrote:
Indeed, which is why I am wondering why LKPR bothered?
I guess there’s some initiative of Eurocontrol for introducing RNAV approaches (including LPV) to the main European airports. Regarding airliners and LPV capability, I wouldn’t be so sure they don’t have one – it probably depends how old the aircrafts are. I remember when ILS was out of service at LDZA and I was #5 at RNAV approach, all four airliners in front of me were capable of flying RNAV approach although I can’t say if they were able for LPV.
Indeed, which is why I am wondering why LKPR bothered? It costs a few hundred €/$ for GA to land there…
The airlines for the most part do not have SBAS approach capability and for the most part can’t use an LPV.
