HANSA Performance Plan 2012-2014 Greece

i

HELLENIC AIR NAVIGATION SUPERVISORY

AUTHORITY

NATIONAL PERFORMANCE PLAN

GREECE

RP1

2012-2014

Edition : 0.7

Edition Date : 17-6-2011

Status : FINAL

iii

DOCUMENT CHANGE RECORD

The following table records the complete history of the successive editions of the present document.

EDITION DATE REASON FOR CHANGE

SECTIONS

PAGES

AFFECTED

0.1 10/2/2011 Draft of work in progress ALL




0.4.1 2/5/2011 Data insertion ALL

0.5 11/5/2011 Draft for consultation with stakeholders ALL

0.6 2/6/2011 Updated draft ALL

0.7 17/6/2011 FINAL -

v

Table of Contents

Table of Contents ............................................................................................................................... v

List of Figures and Tables ................................................................................................................. vii

Relevant Regulations ...................................................................................................................... viii

Abbreviations and Acronyms............................................................................................................. ix

1. Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 THE SITUATION .................................................................................................................... 1

1.2 OVERALL ASSUMPTIONS FOR RP1 ...................................................................................... 2

1.3 STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ......................................................................................... 6

2. National Performance Targets and Alert Thresholds ...................................................................... 7

2.1 PERFORMANCE TARGETS AND ALERT THRESHOLDS FOR RP1 .......................................... 7

2.2 CONSISTENCY WITH THE EUROPEAN UNION-WIDE PERFORMANCE TARGETS .............. 10

2.3 CARRY-OVERS FROM THE YEARS BEFORE RP1 ................................................................. 17

2.4 PARAMETERS FOR RISK SHARING AND INCENTIVES ........................................................ 17

3. Contribution of Each Accountable Entity ...................................................................................... 20

3.1 ANSP’s SHARE TO THE NATIONAL TARGETS .................................................................... 20

3.2 HANSA’s SHARE TO THE NATIONAL TARGETS.................................................................. 24

3.3 METSP’s SHARE TO THE NATIONAL TARGETS .................................................................. 25

4. Military Dimension of the Plan ...................................................................................................... 26

4.1 PERFORMANCE OF THE FUA APPLICATION ...................................................................... 26

4.2 ADDITIONAL KPI’s .............................................................................................................. 27

5. Analysis of Sensitivity ................................................................................................................... 29

5.1 EXTERNAL ASSUMPTIONS ................................................................................................. 29

5.2 COMPARISON WITH PREVIOUS PLANS ............................................................................. 29

6. Implementation of the Performance Plan ..................................................................................... 31

ANNEXES ........................................................................................................................................ 32

ANNEX A ......................................................................................................................................... 33

Table 1 - Total Costs-En-route .......................................................................................................... 33

Table 2 - Unit rate calculation ........................................................................................................... 41

Total costs-Terminal ........................................................................................................................ 49

ANNEX B .......................................................................................................................................... 51

STAKEHOLDERS CONSULTATION MATERIAL ............................................................................... 51

vi

LIST OF PARTICIPANTS ................................................................................................................... 51

MINUTES OF THE STAKEHOLDERS’ CONSULTATION ................................................................... 53

vii

List of Figures and Tables

Figure 1: General socio-economic situation in Greece ............................................................................ 3

Figure 2: GDP growth .............................................................................................................................. 3

Figure 3: Inflation ..................................................................................................................................... 4

Figure 4: SU forecasts 2010-2016 ........................................................................................................... 4

Table 1: Unit rate trend..............................................................................................................................5

Table 2: KPI's for local target setting in PR1.............................................................................................7

Table 3: Presentation of the National targets and thresholds for RP1.......................................................7

Table 4: Reference values for capacity.....................................................................................................9

Table 5: Presentation of en-route capacity target for RP1.........................................................................9

Table 6: Presentation of en-route cost-efficiency target for RP1.............................................................10

Table 7: EU-wide targets and associated thresholds for RP1.................................................................11

Table 8: En-route capacity target-details at National level......................................................................12

Table 9: En-route service units forecast used for the calculation of the national en-route

cost-efficiency targe.................................................................................................................................13

Table 10: National determined en-route costs-breakdown per entity (in nominal terms in EURO).........14

Table 11: National determined en-route costs-breakdown by nature (in nominal terms in EURO).........14

Table 12: National determined en-route costs-total in real terms............................................................15

Table 13: National real en-route determined unit rate.............................................................................15

Table 14: National costs for terminal ANS-breakdown per entity/ charging zone....................................16

Table 15: Carry-overs from the years before RP1- under(-) and over(+) recoveries (in nominal

terms in EURO).......................................................................................................................................17

Table 16: HCAA/ANSP contribution to the National capacity target ( at ANSP level).............................20

Table 17: HCAA/ANSP-Determined en-route ANS costs by nature (in nominal terms in EURO)...........21

Table 18: HCAA/ANSP-Determined en-route ANS costs by service (in nominal terms in EURO)..........21

Table 19: Complementary information on the cost of capital en-route (in nominal terms in EURO).......22

Table 20: HCAA/ANSP-Terminal ANS costs in EURO............................................................................22

Table 21: HCAA/ANSP-Investments (capex) in nominal terms in EURO for en-route and terminal ANS.........................................................................................................................................................23

Table 22: HANSA-Determined en-route ANS costs by nature (in nominal terms in EURO)...................24

Table 23: HANSA-Determined en-route ANS costs by service (in nominal terms in EURO)..................24

Table 24: HANSA-Terminal ANS costs in EURO....................................................................................24

Table 25: METSP-Determined en-route ANS costs by nature (in nominal terms in EURO)...................25

Table 26: METSP-Determined en-route ANS costs by service (in nominal terms in EURO)..................25

viii

Relevant Regulations

• Commission Regulation (EU) No 691/2010 of 29 July 2010 laying down a

performance scheme for air navigation services and network functions and

amending Regulation (EC) No 2096/2005 laying down common requirements for

the provision of air navigation services.

• Commission Decision No 2011/121/EU of 21 February 2011 setting the European

Union-wide performance targets and alert thresholds for the provision of air

navigation services for the years 2012 to 2014.

• Commission Regulation (EU) No 1191/2010 amending Commission

Regulation1794/2006 of 6 December 2006 laying down a common charging scheme

for air navigation services.

• Commission Regulation (EC) No 2096/2005 of 20 December 2005 laying down

common requirements for the provision of air navigation services.

• Regulation (EC) No 549/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10

March 2004 laying down the framework for the creation of the single European sky

(the framework Regulation)


March 2004 on the provision of air navigation services in the single European sky

(the service provision Regulation)


March 2004 on the organization and use of the airspace in the single European sky

(the airspace Regulation)

• Regulation (EC)No 1070/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21

October 2009 amending Regulations (EC)No 549/2004, (EC)No 550/2004, (EC)No

551/2004 and (EC)No 552/2004 in order to improve the performance and

sustainability of the European aviation system.

• Commission Regulation (EU)No 255/2010 of 25 March 2010 laying down common

rules on air traffic flow management

• Commission Regulation (EC) No 1315/2007 of 8 November 2007 on safety oversight

in air traffic management and amending Regulation (EC) No 2096/2005


February 2008 on common rules in the field of civil aviation and establishing a

European Aviation Safety Agency, and repealing Council Directive 91/670/EEC,

Regulation (EC) No1592/2002 and Directive 2004/36/EC.

ix

Abbreviations and Acronyms

The most important abbreviations used in this document are the following:

A :Actual

ACC :Area Control Center

AIS :Aeronautical Information Services

ANS : Air Navigation Service

ANSP : Air Navigation Service Provider

APP :Approach

ATFM :Air Traffic Flow Management

ATM :Air Traffic Management

ATC :Air Traffic Control

ATS :Air Traffic Services

AOM :Airspace Organization and Management

AOP :Airports Operations Domain

BSO :Basic Objective

COM :Communications

CT :Consolidated Table

D :Determined

ET :Entity Table

F :Forecast

FAB :Functional Airspace Block

FIN :Financial

FIR :Flight Information Region

FUA :Flexible Use of Airspace

GAT :General Air Traffic

HANSA :Hellenic Air Navigation Supervisory

Authority

HCAA :Hellenic Civil Aviation Authority

HUM :Human Resources Domain

ICAO :International Civil Aviation Organization

IMF :International Monetary Fund

KPA :Key Performance Area

KPI :Key Performance Indicator

MET :Aviation Meteorology

METSP :Meteorological Service Provider

NAV :Navigation

NSA :National Supervisory Authority

OI :Operational Improvement

PM :Project Manager

PMP :Project Management Plan

PS :Performance Scheme

QA :Quality Assurance

QM :Quality Management

RP :Reference Period

SAF :Safety Domain

SAR :Search and Rescue

SES :Single European Sky

SSP :State Safety Program

SUs :Service Units

SUR :Surveillance

T :Target

TMA :Terminal Control Area

WP :Work Package

1

1. Introduction

1.1 THE SITUATION

In order to meet the requirements of Commission Regulation (EU) no. 691/2010 of July

2010 (laying down a performance scheme for air navigation services and network functions

and amending Regulation (EC) no. 2096/2005 laying down common requirements for the

provision of air navigation services) Hellenic Air Navigation Supervisory Authority (HANSA)

has prepared for Greece the present Performance Plan which covers the first Reference

Period (RP1; 2012-2014).

This Performance Plan has been developed at a national level and registers Greece’s

intention, for the duration of the first reference period, to achieve the objectives of the

Single European Sky and the balance between the needs of all airspace users and supply of

services provided by air navigation service providers.

• Accountable Entities:

The accountable entities covered by the present performance plan are the following:

• HCAA/ANSP: The Greek Air Navigation Service Provider (ANSP) was certified by

HANSA for a bundle of services (ATS, CNS, AIS) on 25 June 2010.The duration of

the certificate is one (1) year. An extension of the certificate has been issued by

HANSA until 30 April 2012.

• HANSA: A single NSA, the "Hellenic Air Navigation National Supervisory Authority"

(HANSA), has been established functionally separated from the air navigation

service provision. Law 3446/2006 establishes the NSA while Presidential Decree

150/2007 covers the organization, the staffing and the responsibilities of the NSA.

Presidential Decree 103/2010 regulates the internal functioning of the NSA.

• METSP: The meteorological service for civil aviation is provided by the “National

Meteorological Service”, the “Regional Met Centre MAKEDONIA” and the

“Regional Met Centre ATA”, which are subordinated to the Ministry of Defence.

HANSA certified the Hellenic National Meteorological Service Provider on 20 May

2010.The duration of the certificate is three (3) years.

• Geographical Scope:

The airspace under Hellenic responsibility is encompassed by the ATHINAI FIR/ HELLAS

UIR as per AIP Greece.

Two ACCs, the Athinai and Makedonia ACCs provide within the ATHINAI FIR/HELLAS UIR

with air traffic services. The environment can be considered as highly complex due to the

large number (10) of adjacent FIRs and the traffic profile (a lot of climbing/descending

flights).

Fifteen (15) TMAs are established at civil airports and eight (8) MTMAs at military

aerodromes. The lower limit of TMAs is generally 1.000 ft. GND. The upper limit varies

between FL 85 and FL 460.

Twenty-six (26) Control Zones (CTRs) are established around civil airports and eight (8)

Control Zones around military aerodromes.

2

The Athinai TMA is the only high complexity TMA. However, taking into account traffic

complexity and distribution, the Makedonia, Kerkira, Iraklion and Rodos TMAs can also be

considered as complex TMAs.

There is no cross border provision of ATS.

• Body providing aggregation of performance targets for FAB:

Greece is cooperating with other EU Member States (Cyprus, Malta and Italy) in

establishing a Functional Airspace Block (FAB) which is called BLUE MED. However, the

four States have decided that, since BLUE MED is not yet formed, each State should submit

its own NPP.

1.2 OVERALL ASSUMPTIONS FOR RP1

For the development of the present Performance Plan, the following key factors have been

taken into account:

• General socio-economic situation of Greece:

In spring 2010 Greece jointed the three-year Economic Adjustment Programme and

consequently adopted comprehensive fiscal consolidation measures.They are expected to

have a dampening impact on domestic demand. However, successful and credible fiscal

adjustment efforts are expected to compensate for the economic cost of adjustment and

lead to the beginning of a recovery in the second half of 2011.

Because of the general socio-economic situation though, it is difficult to draw exact

conclusions as to how the economy will move in the long term.

For the year 2011, fiscal tightening will have a strong contraction impact on economic

activity, on the back of cuts in public wages, an increasing tax burden and ensuing declining

disposable income and public spending. Real GDP is expected to further decline by 3% in

2011 – mainly due to carry-over effects – while growth is expected to turn around positively

during the second half of the year, with the recovery gaining further momentum in 2012.

Inflationary pressures have built up in the course of 2010, fuelled by the VAT-rates rises in

March and July and the increase in excise duties on alcohol, tobacco and fuel.

The contraction of economic activity, reflected in weakening labour demand from the

retail, wholesale and construction sectors, is weighing heavily on employment which is set

to fall by more than 5% over the forecast horizon. Reduced employment opportunities in

the private sector, along with the recruitment freeze and cuts in short-term contracts in the

public sector will push the unemployment rate up to just below 15% in 2012. Negative

employment growth and declining wages should weigh on disposable income over the

medium-term, dampening real demand.1

1 GREECE-Rebalancing growth amidst ongoing fiscal consolidation/European Economic Forecast-Autumn 2010

http://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/eu/forecasts/2010_autumn/el_en.pdf

3

The overall economic situation for Greece in key sectors, from the year 2009 up to the year

2014, can be summarized in the following table:

Forecasts for Greece2 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

GDP growth (%, yoy) -2,3 -4,2 -3,0 1,1 2,1 2,1

Inflation (%, yoy)3 1,35 4,70 2,54 0,50 0,66 0,95

Unemployment (%) 9,5 12,5 12,5 15,2

Public budget balance (% of GDP) -15,4 -9,6 -7,4 -7,5 -7,8 -7,8

Current account balance (% of GDP) -14,0 -10,6 -8,0 -6,5 -5,2 -4,1

Figure 1: General socio-economic situation in Greece

The expected evolution of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and of the national Inflation

is presented schematically below:

• GDP growth (%)

Figure 2: GDP growth

2 The Economic Adjustment Programme for Greece Second review – autumn 2010 http://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/publications/occasional_paper/2010/pdf/ocp72_en.pdf

3 Source: International Monetary Fund, World Economic Outlook Database, April 2011

http://www.eurocontrol.int/prc/gallery/content/public/Docs/IMF_WEO_April2011.pdf

-5,0

-4,0

-3,0

-2,0

-1,0

0,0

1,0

2,0

3,0

1 2 3 4 5 6

GDP %

GDP %

4

• Inflation rate (%):

Figure 3: Inflation rate

• Traffic forecast:

According to the Eurocontrol short – and medium term forecast of Service Units of May

20114, the traffic in Greece is going to increase at around 21% from 2010 to 2016.

Below is a table with the total units for Greece between 2010 and 2016, according to

EUROCONTROL forecasts, with the high, low and baseline scenario for each year:

GREECE

Total SU

in

thousands

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

H 4.555 4.793 5.035 5.283 5.528 5.797

B 4.454 4.507 4.698 4.860 5.041 5.219 5.409

1.2% 4.2% 3.4% 3.7% 3.5% 3.6%

L 4.461 4.607 4.723 4.861 4.995 5.140

Figure 4: SU forecasts 2010-2016

4 EUROCONTROL Short-and-Medium-Term Forecast of Service Units: May 2011 Update

Doc 434-SUF-May11-v1.0.pdf

0,00

0,50

1,00

1,50

2,00

2,50

3,00

3,50

4,00

4,50

5,00

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

INFLATION %

INFLATION %

5

• Unit rate trend:

The unit rate trend for the first reference period is presented in the following table:

Real en-

route

determined

unit rate

profile

2012-2014

2009 A 2010 A 2011 F 2012 F 2013 F 2014 F

Total costs

in real

terms

(in

EUR2011)

182.946.000 173.394.220 171.311.070 166.121.280 164.997.000 165.395.210

Total SU 4.139.000 4.454.000 4.507.000 4.698.000 4.860.000 5.041.000

Real en-

route

determined

unit rate

profile (in

EUR2011)

44.20 38.93 37.57 35.36 33.95 32.81

% n/n-1 -11.9% -3.5% -5.9% -4.0 -3.4%

Table 1: Unit rate trend

Details on the calculations of the unit rate are given in chapter no. 2 “National

performance targets and alert thresholds”.

• Overall status of Aviation Safety:

There are arrangements on safety both at State level and at ANSPs level.

At State level the existing arrangements on safety are:

• the National legal safety regulatory framework and

• a series of safety relevant activities.

Greece, in order to discharge its obligation to ICAO for the development of a State

Safety Programme (SSP), has designated the Governor of Hellenic Civil Aviation

Authority as the National Coordinator for the development of the Greek State Safety

Programme (SSP).

To this end, the HCAA Governor has established a relevant Committee. The primary

task of this Committee is to collect and integrate all existing national arrangements

and safety elements, aiming at developing an SSP manual as the basis for the

establishment of the Greek SSP.

The Committee, so far, has developed a considerable amount of material in

coordination with all the relevant State aviation stakeholders.

The establishment of national Acceptable Levels of Safety (ALoS) is still pending.

The development of a list of national safety indicators and targets, such as the

measurement of safety maturity, the extent of RAT use, the safety culture

measurement (as required by the EC regulation 691/2010), has not been finalized yet.

The completion of this task will allow the State to monitor the level of aviation safety.

6

• Institutional context for ANS provision:

o Ministry of Infrastructure, Transport and Networks: it is the Ministry

responsible for the civil aviation in Greece

o HANSA: The Hellenic Air Navigation Supervisory Authority is the Greek

NSA responsible for the certification, supervision and oversight of the Air

Navigation Services Providers, according to the regulations of the

European Commission for Air Navigation Services in the framework of the

Single European Sky, including the Eurocontrol Safety Regulatory

Requirements (ESSAR’s).

o ANSP: is the certified Air Navigation Service Provider responsible for ANS

provision. The duration of its certificate has been extended by HANSA until

30 April 2012. Law 3913/2011 regarding the reconstruction of HCAA has

been put into effect but its implementation will not affect the status of civil

aviation safety.

o METSP: is the certified Meteorological Air Navigation Service Provider

responsible for the provision of meteorological data.

o Military Component(HAF): The Military Authorities (Hellenic Air Force –

HAF provide Air Traffic Services to civil aircraft at military

Aerodromes/Terminal Control Areas. HAF is also user of some

designated/reserved parts of the airspace. Civil military co-ordination is

ensured through agreed procedures (use of LoAs etc).

1.3 STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION

In accordance with the Performance Scheme Regulation, recital number 11, article

10 clauses 2 (b) and 3 (j), the following stakeholders’ consultation took place:

1. On 28/3/2011 between HANSA, ANSP and METSP experts for the cost-

efficiency.

2. On 1/4/2011 between HANSA and ANSP representatives where guidance

material for the preparation of the Performance Plan and the role of each

accountable entity was presented.

3. On 19/4/2011 between HANSA and ANSP for the elaboration of the data

that will be inserted in the Performance Plan.

4. On 7/6/2011 consultation with all relevant stakeholders (ANSP, METSP,

IATA).All relevant information regarding the meeting is provided in ANNEX

B “Stakeholders Consultation Material”.

7

2. National Performance Targets and Alert Thresholds

The following table lists all the Key Performance Indicators (KPI’s) for each Key

Performance Area (KPA) and their status as mandatory or optional for the RP1 according to

Commission Regulation (EU) No 691/2010:

Table 2: KPI's for local target setting in PR1

2.1 PERFORMANCE TARGETS AND ALERT THRESHOLDS FOR RP1

This section presents, for each KPA, the KPI’s and associated targets that form Greece’s

Performance Plan. It also presents the defined alert thresholds beyond which the alert

mechanism may be activated.

A summary of the National Targets and Thresholds is presented in the following table:

KPA KPI National Targets National

Alert Thresholds 2012 2013 2014

(a) Safety Not set for the first

reference period

(b) Capacity En-route ATFM delay (minutes

per flight) 1.20 1.35 1.50

- Deviation over a

calendar year by at

least 10% of the

actual traffic versus

the traffic forecasts

(c) Environment Not set for the first

reference period

(d) Cost-efficiency Determined en-route unit rate

(2011 prices in EURO) 35.36 33.95 32.81

- Deviation over a

calendar year by at

least 10% of the

actual costs versus

the reference costs

Table 3: Presentation of the National targets and thresholds for RP1

KPA Local KPI for Target Setting in RP1 Status

Safety

Effectiveness of safety management (Maturity) Optional

Application of severity classification scheme Optional

Targets for:

*Separation infringements

*Runway incursions

*ATM special technical events

Optional

Application of just culture Optional

Environment Average horizontal en-route flight efficiency Optional

Capacity

Minutes of en-route ATMF delay per flight Mandatory

Targets for:

*ATFM airport delays

*Additional time in taxi-out phase

*Additional time in arrival sequencing/merging area

Optional

Cost Efficiency Determined unit rate for en-route ANS Mandatory

8

A) SAFETY TARGET AND THRESHOLD

For the first reference period the SAFETY key performance indicators, according to the

Performance Scheme Regulation, are:

(a) The first national safety KPI shall be the effectiveness of safety management as

measured by a methodology based on the ATM Safety Maturity Survey Framework. This

indicator shall be developed jointly by the Commission, the Member States, EASA and

Eurocontrol and adopted by the Commission prior to the first reference period. During this

first reference period, national supervisory authorities will monitor and publish these key

performance indicators, and Member States may set corresponding targets.

(b) The second national safety KPI shall be the application of the severity classification of

the Risk Analysis Tool to allow harmonized reporting of severity assessment of Separation

Minima Infringement, Runway Incursions and ATM Specific Technical Events at all Air

Traffic Control Centers and airports with more than 150 000 commercial air transport

movements per year within the scope of this Regulation (yes/no value). The severity

classification shall be developed jointly by the Commission, the Member States, EASA and

Eurocontrol and adopted by the Commission prior to the first reference period. During this

first reference period, national supervisory authorities will monitor and publish these key

performance indicators, and Member States may set corresponding targets.

(c) The third national safety KPI shall be the reporting of just culture. This measure shall be

developed jointly by the Commission, the Member States, EASA and Eurocontrol and

adopted by the Commission prior to the first reference period. During this first reference

period, national supervisory authorities will monitor and publish this measure, and Member

States may set corresponding targets.EN 3.8.2010 Official Journal of the European Union L

201/13

Greece, for the first reference period, will not set any safety targets at National level.

B) CAPACITY TARGET AND THRESHOLD

For the first reference period, the mandatory capacity KPI is the minutes of en route ATFM

delay per flight. It is defined as follows:

(a) the indicator is defined as the difference between the take-off time requested by the

aircraft operator in the last submitted flight plan and the calculated take-off time allocated by

the central unit of ATFM” .

(b) the indicator is given for each year of the reference period.

In order to prepare the development of a second national capacity KPI, Member States

shall report as from the first reference period:

(a) the total of ATFM delays attributable to terminal and airport air navigation services;

(b) the additional time in the taxi out phase;

(c) for airports with more that 100 000 commercial movements per year the additional time

for ASMA (Arrival Sequencing and Metering Area).

The alert threshold for the first reference period, where an alert mechanism will be

activated, is the deviation over a calendar year by at least 10% of the actual traffic versus

the traffic forecasts.

9

For Greece the capacity targets that would be consistent with the EU-target, as calculated

by EUROCONTROL, are set as shown in the following table:

Table 4: Reference values for capacity

Nevertheless, the minutes of en-route ATFM delay for the years 2012 to 2014 are expected

to be higher than the reference values and reach the numbers shown in the table below:

Table 5: Presentation of en-route capacity target for RP1

The reasons for the discrepancy between the EUROCONTROL reference values and the

targets set for Greece for the first reference period of the Performance Plan are being

analytically explained in the paragraph “2.2 Consistency with the European Union-Wide

performance targets – (b) capacity”.

C) ENVIRONMENT TARGET AND THRESHOLD

The EU-wide environment target is the average horizontal en-route flight efficiency.

For the first reference period, Greece does not propose to adopt any environment KPI at

National level.

D) COST-EFFICIENCY TARGET AND THRESHOLD

For the first reference period, the mandatory cost-efficiency KPI is the determined unit rate

for en route air navigation services, defined as follows:

(a) the indicator is the result of the ratio between the determined costs and the forecast

traffic contained in the performance plans in accordance with Article 10(3)(a) and (b) of the

performance regulation;

(b) the indicator is expressed in national currency and in real terms;

(c) the indicator is provided for each year of the reference period.

5 Capacity reference values- EU Target ACC Breakdown

Capacity KPI ACC ACC Code 2012 F 2013 F 2014 T

Intermediate

Value

Intermediate

Value

Minutes of en-route

ATFM delay per flight5

ATHENS LGGGCTA 0.29 0.24 0.20

MAKEDONIA LGMDCTA 0.28 0.26 0.21

ANSP 0.37 0.32 0.26

Capacity KPI ANSP 2012 F 2013 F 2014 T Alert Threshold

Intermediate

Value

Intermediate

Value

Minutes of en-route

ATFM delay per flight

- Deviation over a

calendar year by at

least 10% of the

actual traffic versus

the traffic forecasts

ANSP 1.20 1.35 1.50

10

In addition, States have to report their terminal air navigation services costs and unit rates

in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1794/2006 and must justify to the Commission any

deviation from the forecasts.

The alert threshold for the first reference period, where an alert mechanism will be

activated, is the deviation over a calendar year by at least 10% of the actual costs versus the

reference costs.

For Greece, the cost-efficiency targets for RP1 are the ones shown in the table below:

Table 6: Presentation of en-route cost-efficiency target for RP1

2.2 CONSISTENCY WITH THE EUROPEAN UNION-WIDE PERFORMANCE

TARGETS

This section sets out the justifications for Greece’s targets and their consistency with the

EU-wide targets, in particular with due regard to the assessment criteria set out at Annex III

of the Performance Scheme IR.

For the performance reference period starting on 1 January 2012 and ending on 31

December 2014, the European Union-wide performance targets, according to Commission

Decision No 2011/121/EU of 21 February 2011, shall be as follows:

(a) environment target: an improvement by 0,75 of a percentage point of the average

horizontal en route flight efficiency indicator in 2014 as compared to the situation

in 2009;

(b) capacity target: an improvement of the average en route Air Traffic Flow

Management (ATFM) delay so as to reach a maximum of 0,5 minute per flight in

2014;

(c) (c) cost-efficiency target: a reduction of the average European Union-wide

determined unit rate for en route air navigation services from 59,97 EUR in 2011 to

53,92 EUR in 2014 (expressed in real terms, EUR 2009), with intermediate annual

values of 57,88 EUR in 2012 and 55,87 EUR in 2013.

For all key performance indicators applicable to the performance reference period, the alert

threshold beyond which the alert mechanism referred to in Article 18 of Regulation (EU) No

691/2010 may be activated shall be a deviation over a calendar year by at least 10 % of the

actual traffic recorded by the Performance Review Body versus the traffic forecasts

expressed in en route service units: 108 776 000 in 2012, 111 605 000 in 2013 and 114 610

000 in 2014.

For the cost-efficiency indicator, the costs evolution alert threshold beyond which the alert

mechanism referred to in Article 18 of Regulation (EU) No 691/2010 may be activated shall

be a deviation over a calendar year by at least 10 % of the actual costs at European Union-

Cost efficiency

KPI

2012 F 2013 F 2014 T Alert Threshold

Intermediate

Value

Intermediate

Value

Real en-route

determined unit

rate (in EURO at

2011 prices)

35.36 33.95 32.81

- Deviation over a

calendar year by at

least 10% of the actual

costs versus the

reference costs

11

wide level recorded by the Performance Review Body versus the reference determined

costs level (expressed in real terms, EUR 2009): 6 296 000 000 in 2012, 6 234 000 000 in

2013 and 6 179 000 000 in 2014.

The above are presented in the following table:

KPA KPI EU-WIDE TARGETS EU-WIDE THRESHOLDS

2012 2013 2014

(b) Capacity Minutes of en-route

ATFM delay per flight

0.7 0.6 0.5 - Deviation over a calendar

year by at least 10% of the

actual traffic versus the

traffic forecasts

c) Environment Improvement of the

average horizontal en-

route flight efficiency

indicator compared to

2009 (in % points)

0.75 - Deviation over a calendar



traffic forecasts

(d)Cost-efficiency Average EU-wide

determined unit rate for

en route ANS (in Euros

2009)

57.88 55.87 53.92 - Deviation over a calendar



traffic forecasts

- Deviation over a calendar


actual costs at EU-wide

level versus the reference

costs

References for the activation of the thresholds

Reference en-route traffic at EU-

wide level (in million en-route service

units)

108.776 111.605 114.610

Reference determined en-route costs

at EU-wide level (in million Euros

2009)

6.296 6.234 6.179

Table 7: EU-wide targets and associated thresholds for RP1

12

� Capacity

The performance of the ANSP with respect to the mandatory capacity KPI for RP1 is shown

in the table below:

Capacity 2009A 2010A 2011F 2012F 2013F 2014T

En-route ATFM delay prior to RP1 (en-

route ATFM delay minutes per flight) 1.11 0.99 1.10/1.256

Reference value from the capacity planning

process of EUROCONTROL (en-route

ATFM delay minutes per flight)

0.37 0.32 0.26

% n/n-1 -13.5% -18.8%

National/FAB capacity target (en-route

ATFM delay in minutes per flight) 1.20 1.35 1.50

% n/n-1 10.0% 13.6%

Difference between the target and the

reference value 0.83 1 .03 1.24

Table 8: En-route capacity target-details at National level

The national capacity targets the first reference period were calculated on the basis of the

en-route ATFM delay recorded during the three previous years, i.e. 2009-2011.

The reasoning behind these figures is listed below:

• The significant increase of overflights that has been documented as of 2003

onwards, mainly attributed to the continuous efforts for improvement of the route

network has resulted to an increase in en-route ATFM delays.

• The economic situation in Greece has resulted in a big decrease in domestic flights

that is expected to continue until the end of the year 2014.

• The STATFOR forecast data on traffic evolution for Greece for the first reference

period show a sizeable increase of traffic at about 3% per annum.

• Having regard to the decrease in domestic flights and the evolution of overflights

so far, Greece expects an increase in traffic higher than 3% p.a..

• The economic situation, Greece being under the Economic Support Mechanism,

and the austerity measures taken, in conjunction with the fact that the ANSP staff

is part of the public sector, cannot guarantee immediate actions in personnel

recruitment. Consequently, the existing personnel, which is additionally expected

to decrease due to scheduled retirements, cannot easily cope with significant traffic

increase.

• Furthermore, there is no evidence so far that adequate investments for

infrastructure have been undertaken that could lead to capacity increase.

6 If the Libyan situation still exists during the summer of 2011, the mean en-route ATFM delay will be deteriorated.

13

� Cost-efficiency

Historically, the Greek en-route unit rate is well below the European average and is among

the lowest in the European Union.

For the first reference period, the cost-efficiency target of Greece is expected to present an

annual reduction in the determined en-route unit rate of 4.3%. The Greek target therefore

is consistent and even surpasses the EU-wide target.

The following tables summarise all relevant costs. Full reporting tables are included as

ANNEX A to this document.

1) En-route SU Forecast (in thousands)

The Service Units forecasts used are from the STATFOR May 2011 forecasts:

2009

A

2010

A 2011 F 2012 F 2013 F 2014 F

En-route total service units prior to

RP1 4.139 4.454 4.507

Forecast total service units used for

the determined unit rate 4.698 4.860 5.041

Source: STATFOR STATFOR STATFOR STATFOR

% n/n-1 7.6% 1.2% 4.2% 3.4% 3.7%

STATFOR service units forecast

(Baseline scenario)7

4.139 4.454 4.507 4.698 4.860 5.041

Date of STATFOR SU forecast: MAY

2011

MAY

2011 MAY 2011 MAY 2011 MAY 2011 MAY 2011

% n/n-1 7.6% 1.2% 4.2% 3.4% 3.7%

Table 9: En-route service units forecast used for the calculation of the national en-route cost-efficiency target

2) Determined en-route ANS costs in nominal terms

The tables below show the efforts made to maintain costs at a stable level. It has to be

stressed that, since 2010, Greek government has adopted austerity measures which

have resulted in cuts in wages and increase in operating costs (mainly due to rises in

VAT, fuel prices, electricity, telecommunications, water et.c.). This procedure is still on-

going and it is expected to affect the cost base at least for the year 2012, given the fact

that all accountable entities in this Performance Plan are part of the Public Sector.

7 EUROCONTROL Short- and Medium-Term Forecast of Service Units: May 2011 Update

14

ANS en-route cost per

entity Currency 2009 A 2010 A 2011 F 2012 D 2013 D 2014 D

ANSP EURO 143,3 142,0 142,8 143,2 143,4

% n/n-1 -8.8% 0.6% 0.4% 0.1%

HANSA EURO 12,4 11,1 12,6 12,7 12,9

% n/n-1 6.8% 0.8% 1.6%

METSP EURO 9,7 9,8 9,6 9,6 9,6

% n/n-1 1.0% -2.0% 0 0

Total determined costs

in nominal terms EURO 165,4 163,6 165,0 165,5 165,9

% n/n-1 -1.1% 0.9% 0.3% 0.2%

Table 10: National determined en-route costs-breakdown per entity (in nominal terms in EURO)

ANS en-route costs per

nature Currency 2009 A 2010 A 2011 F 2012 D 2013 D 2014 D

Staff EURO 139,0 121,4 119,8 119,6 119,6 119,6

% n/n-1

-1.3% -0.2% 0 0

Other operating costs EURO 16,6 33,2 33,0 34,3 34,7 35,0

% n/n-1

-0.6% 3.9% 1.2% 0.9%

Depreciation EURO 7,9 7,4 7,3 7,5 7,6 7,6

% n/n-1

-1.4% 2.7% 1.3% 0

Cost of capital EURO 3,3 3,4 3,5 3,6 3,6 3,7

% n/n-1

2.9% 2.9% 0 2.8%

Exceptional items EURO 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

% n/n-1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0


in nominal terms EURO 166,8 165,4 163,6 165,0 165,5 165,9

% n/n-1 -1.1% 0.9% 0.3% 0.2%

Table 11: National determined en-route costs-breakdown by nature (in nominal terms in EURO)

15

3) Determined en-route ANS costs in real terms

The following table provides the calculations of the conversion of the determined en-route costs

from nominal terms into real 2009 terms. The projected inflation rates used were derived as

described in section 1.2.

Currency 2009 A 2010 A 2011 F 2012 D 2013 D 2014 D


in nominal terms

EURO 189.9 165.4 163.6 165.0 165.5 165.9

Inflation % 4.7% 2.54% 0.50% 0.66% 0.95%

Inflation index

(100 in 2009)

100 104.7 107.4 107.9 108.6 109.6


in real 2009 terms

EURO 158.0 152.4 153.0 152.5 151.4

% n/n-1 -3.5% 0.4% -0.3% -0.7%

Table 12: National determined en-route costs-total in real terms

4) Real en-route determined unit rate

Based on the total determined costs in real 2009 terms and the Service Units forecasts, the real

en-route determined unit rate is presented in the table below:

Currency 2009 A 2010 A 2011 F 2012 D 2013 D 2014 D

Determined costs in real

terms (in national

currency at 2009 prices)

EURO

158.0 152.4 153.0 152.5 151.4

Total en-route SUs 4.454 4.507 4.698 4.860 5.041

Real en-route

determined unit rate in

national currency (at

2009 prices)

EURO 35.47 33.81 32.56 31.38 30.03

% n/n-1 -4.7% -3.7% -3.6% -4.3%

EU-wide target:

average determined

en-route unit rate (in

2009 EUR)

2009 EUR 57,88 55,87 53,92

Table 13: National real en-route determined unit rate

16

5) Terminal ANS costs

The Performance Scheme Regulation requires that, for RP1, EU member States provide an

overview of determined costs for terminal services. This information is provided in the following

table:

ANS terminal cost per

entity/charging zone Currency 2009 A 2010 A 2011 F 2012 D 2013 D 2014 D

ANSP EURO 27.324 25.614 25.636 25.674 25.585 25.585

% n/n-1

0.1% 0.1% -0.3% 0.0

HANSA EURO 0,1948 0,1962 0,1690 0,1660 0,1660

% n/n-1

0.7% -13.9% -1.8% 0.0

Total terminal costs in

nominal terms EURO 25.614,19 25.636,20 25.674,17 25.585.17 25.585.17

% n/n-1 0.1% 0.1% -0.3% 0.0

Table 14: National costs for terminal ANS-breakdown per entity/ charging zone

� Independencies between targets

The Key performance Areas covered by this Performance Plan, i.e. capacity and cost-efficiency,

should not be considered as stand alone, performance in one area will affect performance in other

areas. A balance should be found between the cost of investments necessary to provide adequate

capacity and the cost of delays if insufficient capacity is provided.

The cost-efficiency target adopted by Greece is consistent, and even surpasses, the EU-wide targets.

On the other hand, the en-route ATFM delays are well above the reference values provided by

Eurocontrol and as a result the capacity target is not consistent with the EU-wide targets.

This is caused mainly because traffic has increased dramatically over the years, it is expected to

continue to do so, but no new staff recruitments nor any investments for the improvement of the

capacity target are foreseen due to the fact that Greece in under the European Support Mechanism.

Nevertheless, HCAA has made an effort to expedite approval for the initiation of five major projects

within the next 3 years, which would improve capacity and cost-efficiency but as these would take

some time to implement it would be crucial to invest in the human factor.

17

2.3 CARRY-OVERS FROM THE YEARS BEFORE RP1

The following table provides an overview of the carry-overs form the years before RP1 that are

relevant to the period covered by RP1.

2007

A

2008

A

2009

A

2010

F

2011

F

2012

P

2013

P

2014

P

Carry- overs of under / over recoveries (in '000 euro)

Balance Year 2004

-13.887 -2.777 -2.777 -2.777 -2.777

Balance Year 2005

-24.786 -4.957 -4.957 -4.957 -4.957

-

4.957

Balance Year 2006

-319 -319

Balance Year 2007

-1.109 -1.109

Balance Year 2008

2.179 2.179

Balance Year 2009

-4.920

-

4.920

Balance Year 2010

-1.593 -1.593

Balance Year 2011

Amounts carried over to

year (i) -7.735 -8.054 -8.843 -5.596 -9.878 -1.593

(1) Adjustment total service units -5.702

-

10.138

-

1.634

Table 15: Carry-overs from the years before RP1- under(-) and over(+) recoveries (in nominal terms in EURO)

2.4 PARAMETERS FOR RISK SHARING AND INCENTIVES

• Incentives:

For the time being, no incentive mechanisms are foreseen to be applied regarding the capacity and

cost-efficiency targets.

• Risk-sharing:

The traffic risk-sharing mechanism comprises the following:

o Where, over a given year n, the actual number of service units does not

exceed or fall below the forecast established at the beginning of the

reference period by more than 2 %, the additional revenue or loss in

revenue of the air navigation service provider with regard to determined

costs shall not be carried over.

o Where, over a given year n, the actual number of service units exceeds the

forecast established at the beginning of the reference period by more than

2 %, a minimum of 70 % of the additional revenue obtained by the air

navigation service provider(s) concerned in excess of 2 % of the difference

between the actual service units and the forecast with regard to

18

determined costs shall be returned to airspace users no later than in year

n+2.

o Where, over a given year n, the actual number of service units falls below

the forecast established at the beginning of the reference period by more

than 2 %, a maximum of 70 % of the loss in revenue incurred by the air

navigation service provider(s) concerned in excess of 2 % of the difference

between the actual service units and the forecast with regard to

determined costs shall be borne by the airspace users in principle no later

than in year n+2. However, Greece may decide to spread the carry -over of

such loss in revenue over several years with a view to preserving the

stability of the unit rate.

The following costs shall not be submitted to traffic risk sharing and shall be

recovered irrespective of traffic evolution:

(a) the determined costs established in application of Article 5(2) of EC Regulation

1191/2010 with the exception of agreements relating to cross border air traffic

service provision;

(b) the determined costs of METSP;

(c) the carry-overs authorised from a previous year or reference period and bonuses

or penalties resulting from incentive schemes;

(d) the over- or under-recoveries resulting from traffic variations, which shall be

recovered no later than in year n+2.

Where, over a given year n, the actual service units are lower than 90 % of the

forecast established at the beginning of the reference period, the full amount of the

loss in revenue incurred by the air navigation service provider(s) concerned in

excess of the 10 % of the difference between the actual service units and the

forecast in respect of determined costs shall be borne by the airspace users in

principle no later than in year n+2. However, Greece may decide to spread the

carry-over of such loss in revenue over several years with the view to preserving the

stability of unit rate.

Where, over a given year n, the actual service units exceed 110% of the forecast

established at the beginning of the reference period, the full amount of the

additional revenue obtained by the air navigation service provider(s) concerned in

excess of the 10% of the difference between the actual service units and the

forecast in respect of determined costs shall be returned to airspace users in year

n+2.

The cost risk-sharing mechanism provides that:

(a)where, over the whole reference period, actual costs fall below the

determined costs established at the beginning of the reference period, the

resulting difference shall be retained by the air navigation service provider,

Member State or qualified entity concerned;

(b)where, over the whole reference period, actual costs exceed the

determined costs established at the beginning of the reference period, the

resulting difference shall be borne by the air navigation service provider,

Member State or qualified entity concerned without prejudice to the

activation of an alert mechanism in accordance with Article 18 of

Regulation (EU) No 691/2010;

Points (a) and (b) may not apply to the difference between actual and determined

costs which may be deemed to be out of the control of the air navigation service

providers, Member States and qualified entities as a result of:

19

(i) unforeseen changes in national pension regulations and pension accounting

regulations;

(ii) unforeseen changes in to national taxation law;

(iii) unforeseen and new cost items not covered in the national performance plan

but required by law;

(iv) unforeseen changes in costs or revenues stemming from international

agreements;

(v) significant changes in interest rates on loans.

Where, over the whole reference period, actual costs are lower than the determined

costs established at the beginning of the reference period, the resulting difference

shall be returned to airspace users through a carry-over to the following reference

period.

Where, over the whole reference period, actual costs exceed the determined costs

established at the beginning of the reference period, the resulting difference shall

be passed on to airspace users through a carry-over to the following period.

The national supervisory authority concerned shall explicitly agree to the carry-over

after having ascertained that:

(i) the variation of actual costs against determined costs is actually the result of

developments that are beyond the influence of the air navigation service provider,

Member State or qualified entity concerned;

(ii) the variation in costs to be passed on to users is specifically identified and

categorised.

20

3. Contribution of Each Accountable Entity

3.1 ANSP’s SHARE TO THE NATIONAL TARGETS

(a)Safety

The SES regulatory framework requires that each certified ANSP has a Safety Management

System (SMS) in place.

The required Acceptable Levels of Safety (ALoS), to be agreed between HCAA and HANSA,

are currently being developed.

(b)Capacity

The HCAA/ANSP will be the only entity accountable for meeting the capacity targets for

RP1.

Capacity 2009A 2010A 2011F 2012F 2013F 2014T

En-route ATFM delay prior to RP1 (en-

route ATFM delay minutes per flight) 1.11 0.99 1.10/1.258

Reference value from the capacity planning

process of EUROCONTROL (en-route

ATFM delay minutes per flight)

0.37 0.32 0.26

% n/n-1 -13.5% -18.8%

National/FAB capacity target (en-route

ATFM delay in minutes per flight) 1.20 1.35 1.50

% n/n-1 10.0% 13.6%

Difference between the target and the

reference value -0.83 -1 -1.24

Table 16: HCAA/ANSP contribution to the National capacity target ( at ANSP level)

(c)Environment

HCAA/ANSP is the accountable entity for the environment.

No targets on environment will be set for the first reference period.

(d)Cost-efficiency

Details of the HCAA/ANSP’s determined en-route costs are provided in the Reporting

tables included in ANNEX A of this document. A summary of these tables is provided

below:

8 If the Libyan situation still exists during the summer of 2011, the mean en-route ATFM delay will be deteriorated.

21

• Determined en-route ANS costs:

• By nature

<HCAA/ANSP> Currency 2010 A 2011 F 2012 D 2013 D 2014 D

Staff EURO 115.3 113.2 113.2 113.2 113.2

Other operating costs EURO 18.1 18.9 19.2 19.5 19.5

Depreciation EURO 6.8 6.7 7.0 7.1 7.2

Cost of capital EURO 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.4 3.5

Exceptional items EURO 0 0 0 0 0

Total en-route costs EURO 143.3 142.0 142.8 143.3 143.4

Table 17: HCAA/ANSP-Determined en-route ANS costs by nature (in nominal terms in EURO)

• By service


Air Traffic Management EURO 140.1 140.4 141.2 141.7 141.8

Communication EURO

Navigation EURO

Surveillance EURO

Search and rescue EURO

Aeronautical Information EURO

Meteorological services EURO 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Supervision costs EURO 3.3 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6

Other State costs EURO 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total costs EURO 143.3 142.0 142.8 143.3 143.4

Table 18: HCAA/ANSP-Determined en-route ANS costs by service (in nominal terms in EURO)

22


Net book value fixed assets EURO 137.2 123.0 105.0 105.0 105.0

Adjustments to total assets EURO 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Net current assets EURO 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total asset base EURO 137.2 123.0 105.0 105.0 105.0

Cost of capital pre tax rate % 2.5% 2.8% 3.2% 3.3% 3.3%

Return on equity % 4.0% 4.1% 4.1% 4.1% 4.1%

Average interest on debts %

Table 19: Complementary information on the cost of capital en-route (in nominal terms in EURO)

• Terminal ANS costs:

<HCAA/ANSP> Currency 2009 A 2010 A 2011 F 2012 D 2013 D 2014 D

Staff EURO 16.880 15.080 15.080 15.080 15.080 15.080

Other operating costs EURO 8.147 8.326 8.436 8.563 8.563 8.563

Depreciation EURO 1.266 1.266 1.266 1.266 1.266 1.266

Cost of capital EURO 1.031 942 854 765 676 676

Exceptional items EURO 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total terminal costs EURO 27.324 25.614 25.636 25.674 25.585 25.585

Table 20: HCAA/ANSP-Terminal ANS costs in EURO

Return on equity:

For the calculation of the return on equity, the 10-year Greek Government Bond was used

which was 10.17%

23

Investments:

The list for the main CAPEX projects between 2012 and 2014, deemed crucial for the

improvement of capacity and cost-efficiency, is shown in the table below.

The present economic situation in Greece though, cannot guarantee that these

investments will be implemented in due time.

Name Planned

start date

Planned end

date Budget

k€

1. Athinai/Makedonia ACC main VCS/RCS COM 2011 2014 8.500

2. Four (4) Airport VCS/RCSs COM 2011 2014 2.400

3. HACAS

Hellenic AFTN/CIDIN AMHS COM 2010 2012 1.800

4. Thessaloniki/Makedonia International Airport SMR/A-

SMGCS SUR 2009 2011 3.800

5. Elementary Mode S RADAR SENSOR at Himittos . SUR 2011 2014 1.750

6. UPGRADE OF PALLAS SYSTEM - MAIN FDPS/RDPS /

ODS ATM 2008 2009 1.500

ATM 2011 2014 3.750

7. PATROCLOS Upgrade ATM 2009 2011 2.250

8. CRISTAL ADS B OUT

In cooperation with

EUROCONTROL

SUR 2011 2013 0.6

Table 21: HCAA/ANSP-Investments (capex) in nominal terms in EURO for en-route and terminal ANS

24

3.2 HANSA’s SHARE TO THE NATIONAL TARGETS

HANSA is accountable only for the cost-efficiency target


• By nature

<HANSA> Currency 2010 A 2011 F 2012 D 2013 D 2014 D

Staff EURO

0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5

Other operating costs EURO 12.4 11.2 12.1 12.2 12.4

Total en-route costs EURO

11.8 12.6 12.7 12.9

Table 22: HANSA-Determined en-route ANS costs by nature (in nominal terms in EURO)

• By service

<HANSA> Currency 2010 A 2011 F 2012 D 2013 D 2014 D

Supervision costs EURO

0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5

Other State costs(incl ECTL) EURO 12.4 11.2 12.1 12.2 12.4

Total costs EURO 12.4 11.8 12.6 12.7 12.9

Table 23: HANSA-Determined en-route ANS costs by service (in nominal terms in EURO)

• Terminal ANS costs:

<HANSA> Currency 2009 A 2010 A 2011 F 2012 D 2013 D 2014 D

Staff EURO - 0,1632 0,1544 0,1273 0,1273 0,1273

Other operating costs EURO - 0,0317 0,0418 0,0418 0,0387 0,0387

Depreciation EURO - 0 0 0 0 0

Cost of capital EURO - 0 0 0 0 0

Exceptional items EURO - 0 0 0 0 0

Total terminal costs EURO - 0,1948 0,1962 0,1690 0,1660 0,1660

Table 24: HANSA-Terminal ANS costs in EURO

25

3.3 METSP’s SHARE TO THE NATIONAL TARGETS

METSP is accountable only for the cost-efficiency target.


• By nature

<METSP> Currency 2010 A 2011 F 2012 D 2013 D 2014 D

Staff EURO 6,2 6,0 5,9 5,9 5,9

Other operating costs EURO 2,8 3,0 3,0 3,0 3,0

Depreciation EURO 0,6 0,6 0,5 0,5 0,5

Cost of capital EURO 0,2 0,2 0,2 0,2 0,2

Total en-route costs EURO 9,7 9,8 9,6 9,6 9,6

Table 25: METSP-Determined en-route ANS costs by nature (in nominal terms in EURO)

• By service

<METSP> Currency 2010 A 2011 F 2012 D 2013 D 2014 D

Meteorological services EURO 9,7 9,8 9,6 9,6 9,6

Total costs EURO 9,7 9,8 9,6 9,6 9,6

Table 26: METSP-Determined en-route ANS costs by service (in nominal terms in EURO)

26

4. Military Dimension of the Plan

4.1 PERFORMANCE OF THE FUA APPLICATION

The FUA Concept in Greece, is based on the Protocol of Cooperation between Ministry of

Defence and Ministry of Infrastructure, Transport and Networks.

The implementation of the FUA Concept in Greece took place on January 2007 when the

first AUP was published.

The FUA Concept is based on three Levels:

a) Strategic ASM - Level 1,

b) Pre-Tactical ASM - Level 2, and

c) Tactical ASM - Level 3.

The three ASM Levels correspond with civil/military co-ordination tasks. Each Level is

related directly to, and impacts on, the others.

1. Strategic ASM at Level 1 consists of a joint civil and military process

within a high-level civil/military National body, which formulates the

National ASM policy and carries out the necessary strategic planning

work, taking into account National and international airspace

users requirements.

2. Pre-Tactical ASM at Level 2 consists of the day-to-day management and

temporary allocation of airspace through the AMC.

AMC is a joint civil/military ASM focal-point which has the authority to

define ASM structures. Collects and analyses all airspace requests and

decides the daily airspace allocation. Every day, the AMC promulgate the

Airspace Use Plan (AUP) and amends, if needed, the Updated Use Plan

(UUP) to the CFMU –CADF.

A hard copy of AUP or UUP is distributed to the appropriate sectors

of ATH/MAK/ACC .

3. Tactical ASM Level 3 consists of the real-time activation, or real-time

reallocation of the airspace allocated at Level 2 and the resolution of

specific airspace problems between civil and military ATS units

: ATH/MAK/ACC and responsible Military units.

Conditional Routes (CDRs) are established by the Level 1, allocated at Level 2 and utilised in

a flexible manner at Level 3.

CDRs are “non-permanent” parts of the published ATS route network. CDRs are

established to offer more direct and alternative routes, through areas of Military TMAs and

areas of temporary reservation for military activities.

The performance of the FUA application is in conformity with:

• COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 2150/2005,

• EUROCONTROL Specification for the application of FUA.

• EUROCONTROL Handbook for Airspace Management.

According to our statistical data, the daily use of CDRs corresponds at about 4% of the total

traffic (1500 flights per day) in average during working days. This percentage is increased to

about 6% of the total traffic during weekends and national holidays.

27

It is estimated that every CDR is used by 20 flights per day, in average. In total, for the 9

CDRs available, it is estimated that there are about 180 flights per day, using the CDRs, in

average. This results in a saving of about 10NM per CDR, per flight, in total 1800NM per

day.

4.2 ADDITIONAL KPI’s

There are no KPI’s set regarding FUA application for the first reference period.

29

5. Analysis of Sensitivity

5.1 EXTERNAL ASSUMPTIONS

• Since 2010, Greek government has adopted austerity measures which have

resulted in cuts in wages and increase in operating costs (mainly due to rises in

VAT, fuel prices, electricity, telecommunications, water et.c.). This procedure is still

on-going and it is expected to affect the cost base at least for the year 2012, given

the fact that all accountable entities in this Performance Plan are part of the Public

Sector. As a result, it is not feasible to make any credible assumptions as to how

these measures will affect total costs.

• Given the present situation regarding the en-route ATFM delays, if traffic growth is

going to be substantially bigger than the one forecasted, the capacity target is

expected to deteriorate.

5.2 COMPARISON WITH PREVIOUS PLANS

There are no previous Performance Plans for comparison.

31

6. Implementation of the Performance Plan

• HANSA will monitor the performance of the accountable entities against the

targets set out in the present Performance Plan, starting six months after the

commencement of RP1, i.e. July 2012, and every six months from then on. This

monitoring will not necessarily be accompanied by any formal reporting.

• HANSA will also periodically analyse the KPIs to assess progress against targets

and any reduction in performance that is identified will be discussed with the

appropriate stakeholders with a view to agreeing on the necessary corrective action

to be taken.

• For the purposes of formal reporting, as required by the Performance Scheme

Regulation, the proposed schedule is as follows, in the year following the end of

each of the years 2012, 2013 and 2014:

1. April 2013, 2014, 2015

The accountable entities report the actual performance of the previous year

and the revised plan for the remaining years of the reporting period. Any

deviations between the forecasted figures in this performance plan and the

actual figures should be explained.

Costs that are deemed uncontrollable by the accountable entities must be set

out clearly so they can be excluded from the cost-risk sharing.

2. May 2013, 2014, 2015

HANSA reviews the submissions by the Accountable Entities and seeks

explanations and clarifications from them of any deviations. HANSA evaluates

any requests for carry-overs of changes deemed uncontrollable, according to

the article 11a, paragraph 8c, of the Charging Scheme Regulation. HANSA will

decide whether the alert mechanism should be invoked, according to article 18

paragraph 2 of the Performance Scheme Regulation.

After the review, HANSA prepares the Annual Progress Report and submits it

to the State for adoption.

3. June 2013, 2014, 2015

State reviews the Annual Progress Report and HANSA makes any amendments

deemed necessary. The State approves the Annual Progress Report and

submits it to the Performance Review Body for approval.

32

ANNEXES

33

ANNEX A

Table 1 - Total Costs-En-route

Charging zone name Greece

Period of reference : 2012-2014

Consolidation - all entities

Forecast Costs* Determined Costs

Actual costs

Cost details

2010F* 2011F* 2012 2013 2014

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

1. Detail by nature (in nominal terms)

1.1 Staff 122,0 118,5 119,6 119,6 119,6

121,4 119,8

1.2 Other operating costs 33,5 32,5 34,3 34,7 35,0

33,2 33,0

1.3 Depreciation 7,4 7,2 7,5 7,6 7,6

7,3 7,3

1.4 Cost of capital 3,4 3,5 3,6 3,6 3,7

3,4 3,5

1.5 Exceptional items 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0

0,0 0,0

1.6 Total costs 166,3 161,7 165,0 165,5 165,9

165,4 163,6

Total % n/n-1 -2,8% 2,0% 0,3% 0,2%

-1,1%

Staff % n/n-1 -2,9% 0,9% 0,0% 0,0%

-1,3%

Other op. % n/n-1 -2,9% 5,4% 1,1% 0,8%

-0,6%

2. Detail by service (in nominal terms)

2.1 Air Traffic Management 139,9 140,4 141,2 141,7 141,8

140,1 140,4

2.2 Communication 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0

0,0 0,0

2.3 Navigation 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0

0,0 0,0

2.4 Surveillance 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0

0,0 0,0

2.5 Search and rescue 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0

0,0 0,0

2.6 Aeronautical Information 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0

0,0 0,0

2.7 Meteorological services 10,7 8,7 9,6 9,6 9,6

9,7 9,8

2.8 Supervision costs 3,3 1,6 2,1 2,1 2,1

3,3 2,2

2.9 Other State costs 12,6 11,1 12,1 12,2 12,4

12,4 11,2

2.10 Total costs 166,3 161,7 165,0 165,5 165,9

165,4 163,6

Total % n/n-1 -2,8% 2,0% 0,3% 0,2%

-1,1%

ATM % n/n-1 0,4% 0,6% 0,3% 0,1%

0,3%

CNS % n/n-1

3. Complementary information on the cost of capital and on the cost of common projects (in nominal terms)

Average asset base

3.1 Net book val. fixed assets 137,2 123,0 105,0 105,0 105,0

137,2 123,0

3.2 Adjustments total assets 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0

0,0 0,0

3.3 Net current assets 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0

0,0 0,0

3.4 Total asset base 137,2 123,0 105,0 105,0 105,0

137,2 123,0

Cost of capital %

3.5 Cost of capital pre tax rate

3.6 Return on equity 4,0% 4,1% 4,1% 4,1% 4,1%

4,0% 4,1%

3.7 Average interest on debts

Cost of common projects

3.8 Common Project 1

34

4. Complementary information on inflation and on total costs in real terms

4.1 Inflation % (1) 4,7% 2,5% 0,5% 0,7% 1,0%

4,7% 2,5%

4.2 Price index - Base 100 in 2009 104,7 107,3 107,9 108,6 109,6

104,7 107,4

4.3 Total costs real terms (2) 158,7 150,7 153,0 152,5 151,4

158,0 152,4

Total % n/n-1 -5,2% 1,5% -0,3% -0,7%

-3,5%

5. Deduction of costs allocated to exempted VFR flights (in nominal terms)

5.1 Total costs 166,3 161,7 165,0 165,5 165,9

165,4 163,6

5.2 Costs for exempted VFR flights 0,5 0,5 0,5 0,5 0,5

0,5 0,5

5.3 Total costs after deduction (3) 165,8 161,2 164,5 165,0 165,4

164,9 163,1

Costs and asset base items in '000 000 Euro - Service units in '000 000

(1) Forecast inflation used for establishing the determined costs in nominal terms - actual inflation recorded by EUROSTAT

(2) Determined costs (performance plan) in real terms - actual costs in real terms - base 100 in 2009

(3) Determined costs (after deduction of VFR costs) reported at line 1.1 - Reporting Table 2 (in nominal terms)

*Forecast data used for the calculation of the corresponding unit rates (i.e. November 2009 data for 2010 F; November 2010 data for 2011 F)

35

Table 1 - Total Costs



HCAA/ ANSP


Actual costs

Cost details

2010F* 2011F* 2012 2013 2014

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014


1.1 Staff 122,0 118,5 113,2 113,2 113,2

115,3 113,2


18,1 18,9

1.3 Depreciation 7,4 7,2 7,0 7,1 7,2

6,8 6,7

1.4 Cost of capital 3,4 3,5 3,4 3,4 3,5

3,2 3,3

1.5 Exceptional items

1.6 Total costs 153,8 150,7 142,8 143,3 143,4

143,3 142,0

Total % n/n-1 -2,0% -11,7% 0,3% 0,1%

-0,9%

Staff % n/n-1 -2,9% -4,5% 0,0% 0,0%

-1,8%

Other op. % n/n-1 -2,5% -41,0% 1,7% 0,0%

4,4%


2.1 Air Traffic Management 139,9 140,4 141,2 141,7 141,8

140,1 140,4

2.2 Communication

2.3 Navigation

2.4 Surveillance

2.5 Search and rescue

2.6 Aeronautical Information

2.7 Meteorological services 10,7 8,7 0,0 0,0 0,0

0,0 0,0

2.8 Supervision costs 3,3 1,6 1,6 1,6 1,6

3,3 1,6

2.9 Other State costs

2.10 Total costs 153,8 150,7 142,8 143,3 143,4

143,3 142,0

Total % n/n-1 -2,0% -5,2% 0,3% 0,1%

-0,9%

ATM % n/n-1 0,4% 0,6% 0,3% 0,1%

0,3%

CNS % n/n-1


Average asset base

3.1 Net book val. fixed assets 137,2 123,0 105,0 105,0 105,0

137,2 123,0

3.2 Adjustments total assets 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0

0,0 0,0

3.3 Net current assets 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0

0,0 0,0

3.4 Total asset base 137,2 123,0 105,0 105,0 105,0

137,2 123,0

Cost of capital %

3.5 Cost of capital pre tax rate 2,5% 2,8% 3,2% 3,3% 3,3%

2,5% 2,8%

3.6 Return on equity 4,0% 4,1% 4,1% 4,1% 4,1%

4,0% 4,1%





4.1 Inflation % (1) 4,7% 2,5% 0,5% 0,7% 1,0%

4,7% 2,5%


104,7 107,4


136,9 132,3

Total % n/n-1 -4,4% -5,7% -0,3% -0,9%

-3,4%

36







5.1 Total costs 153,8 150,7 142,8 143,3 143,4

143,3 142,0

5.2 Costs for exempted VFR flights 0,5 0,5 0,5 0,5 0,5

0,5 0,5


142,8 141,5

37




MET Service Provider


Actual costs

Cost details

2010F* 2011F* 2012 2013 2014

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014


1.1 Staff 5,9 5,9 5,9

6,2 6,0

1.2 Other operating costs 3,0 3,0 3,0

2,8 3,0

1.3 Depreciation 0,5 0,5 0,5

0,6 0,6

1.4 Cost of capital 0,2 0,2 0,2

0,2 0,2


1.6 Total costs 9,6 9,6 9,6

9,7 9,8

Total % n/n-1

Staff % n/n-1

Other op. % n/n-1


2.1 Air Traffic Management

2.2 Communication

2.3 Navigation

2.4 Surveillance



2.7 Meteorological services 9,6 9,6 9,6

9,7 9,8

2.8 Supervision costs

2.9 Other State costs

2.10 Total costs 9,6 9,6 9,6

9,7 9,8

Total % n/n-1

ATM % n/n-1

CNS % n/n-1


Average asset base

3.1 Net book val. fixed assets

3.2 Adjustments total assets

3.3 Net current assets

3.4 Total asset base

Cost of capital %


3.6 Return on equity





4.1 Inflation % (1) 1,9% 1,5% 0,5% 0,7% 1,0%

4,7% 2,5%


104,7 107,4


9,3 9,1

Total % n/n-1

38


5.1 Total costs 9,6 9,6 9,6

9,7 9,8

5.2 Costs for exempted VFR flights

5.3 Total costs after deduction (3) 9,6 9,6 9,6

9,7 9,8






39




State - NSA


Actual costs

Cost details

2010F* 2011F* 2012 2013 2014

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014


1.1 Staff 0,5 0,5 0,5

0,6


12,4 11,2

1.3 Depreciation

1.4 Cost of capital


1.6 Total costs 12,6 11,1 12,6 12,7 12,9

11,8

Total % n/n-1

Staff % n/n-1

Other op. % n/n-1


2.1 Air Traffic Management

2.2 Communication

2.3 Navigation

2.4 Surveillance



2.7 Meteorological services

2.8 Supervision costs 0,5 0,5 0,5

0,6

2.9 Other State costs (inc.ECTL) 12,6 11,1 12,1 12,2 12,4

12,4 11,2

2.10 Total costs 12,6 11,1 12,6 12,7 12,9

12,4 11,8

Total % n/n-1

ATM % n/n-1

CNS % n/n-1


Average asset base

3.1 Net book val. fixed assets

3.2 Adjustments total assets

3.3 Net current assets

3.4 Total asset base

Cost of capital %


3.6 Return on equity





4.1 Inflation % (1) 4,7% 2,5% 0,5% 0,7% 1,0%

4,7% 2,5%


104,7 107,4


11,8 11,0

Total % n/n-1 -14,2% 13,6% -0,6% 0,9%

40


5.1 Total costs 12,6 11,1 12,6 12,7 12,9

12,4 11,8

5.2 Costs for exempted VFR flights


12,4 11,8






41

Table 2 - Unit rate calculation

Charging zone name : Greece


Consolidation - all entities

Unit rate calculation 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

1. Determined costs in nominal terms and inflation adjustment

1.1 Determined costs in nominal terms - VFR excl. - Table 1 165,8 161,2 164,5 165,0 165,4

1.2 Actual inflation rate - Table 1 4,7%

1.3 Forecast inflation rate - Table 1 4,7% 2,5% 0,5% 0,7% 1,0%

1.4 Inflation adjustment - Article 1.7.2 : year n amount to be carried over

2. Forecast and actual total service units

2.1 Forecast total service units (performance plan) 4,4 4,6 4,7 4,9 5,0

2.2 Actual total service units 4,5

2.3 Actual / forecast total service units (in %)

3. Costs subject to traffic risk sharing (ANSP)

3.1 Determined costs in nominal terms - VFR excl. (reported from Table 1) 153,3 150,1 142,3 142,7 142,8

3.2 Inflation adjustment - Article 1.7.2 : amount carried over to year n

3.3 Traffic - Article 1.4.2 : amounts carried over to year n

3.4 Traffic risk sharing - Article 1.4.2 : add. revenue carried over to year n

3.5 Traffic risk sharing - Article 1.4.2: revenues losses carried over to year n

3.6 Uncontrollable costs - Article 1.4.2 : amounts carried over to year n

3.7 Bonus or penalty for performance - Article 1.11.2

3.8 Over(-) or under(+) recoveries (1) : amounts carried over to year n 5,7 10,1 1,6 0,0 0,0

3.9 Total for the calculation of year n unit rate 171,5 171,3 142,3 142,7 142,8

3.10 Traffic risk sharing - Article 1.4.2 : add. rev. year n to be carried-over

3.11 Traffic risk sharing - Article 1.4.2 : revenue loss year n to be carried-over

Parameters for traffic risk sharing

3.12 % additional revenue returned to users in year n+2 - Article 1.4.2 70% 70% 70%

3.13 % loss of revenue borne by airspace users - Article 1.4.2 70% 70% 70%

4. Costs not subject to traffic risk sharing - Article 11a (2)

4.1 Determined costs in nominal terms - VFR excl. (Table 1) 12,6 11,1 22,2 22,3 22,6






42

5. Other revenues - applied unit rate (in national currency)

5.1 Revenues from other sources - Article 1.3 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0

5.2 Grand total for the calculation of year n unit rate 172 171 166 165 165

5.3 Year n unit rate (in national currency) 38,93 37,57 35,36 33,95 32,81

5.4 ANSP component of the unit rate 36,08 34,43 29,44 28,23 27,13

5.5 MET component of the unit rate 0,00 0,00 1,97 1,90 1,83

5.6 NSA-State component of the unit rate 2,85 2,38 2,58 2,51 2,46

5.7 Year n unit rate that would have applied without other revenues 38,93 37,57 35,36 33,95 32,81

Costs, revenues and other amounts in '000 000 Euro - Service units in '000 000

(1) Over/under recoveries incurred up to the year of entry into force of the determined cost method

43




HCAA/ ANSP












3.1 Determined costs in nominal terms - VFR excl. (reported from Table 1) 153,3 150,1 142,3 142,7 142,8












3.12 % additional revenue returned to users in year n+2 - Article 1.4.2 70% 70% 70%

3.13 % loss of revenue borne by airspace users - Article 1.4.2 70% 70% 70%


4.1 Determined costs in nominal terms - VFR excl. (Table 1)




4.5 Over(-) or under(+) recoveries (1) : amounts carried over to year n

4.6 Total for the calculation of year n unit rate

44


5.1 Revenues from other sources - Article 1.3

5.2 Grand total for the calculation of year n unit rate 159,0 160 144 143 143


5.4 ANSP component of the unit rate

5.5 MET component of the unit rate

5.6 NSA-State component of the unit rate




45




MET Service Provider












3.1 Determined costs in nominal terms - VFR excl. (reported from Table 1)












3.12 % additional revenue returned to users in year n+2 - Article 1.4.2

3.13 % loss of revenue borne by airspace users - Article 1.4.2








46





5.2 Grand total for the calculation of year n unit rate 0,0 0,0 9,6 9,6 9,6






47




State - NSA












3.1 Determined costs in nominal terms - VFR excl. (reported from Table 1)












3.12 % additional revenue returned to users in year n+2 - Article 1.4.2

3.13 % loss of revenue borne by airspace users - Article 1.4.2








48



5.2 Grand total for the calculation of year n unit rate 12,6 11,1 12,6 12,7 12,9








49

Total costs-Terminal

Organisation: HCAA

Charging zone: Greece - Terminal

2008

A 2009

A 2010

A 2011

F 2012

F 2013

P 2014

P

Detail by nature (in '000 euro)

Staff 16.880 15.080 15.080 15.080 15.080 15.080

-10,7% 0.0% 0.0% 0,0% 0,0%

Other operating costs 8.147 8.326 8.436 8.563 8.563 8.563

2,2% 1,3% 1,5% 0,0% 0,0%

Depreciation 1.266 1.266 1.266 1.266 1.266 1.266

0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0%

Cost of capital 1.031 942 854 765 676 676

-8,6% -9,3% -10,4% -11,6% 0,0%

Exceptional items

Total costs 27.324 25.614 25.636 25.674 25.585 25.585

-6,3% 0,1% 0,1% -0,3% 0,0%

Detail by services (in '000 euro)

Air traffic management 11.981 13.056 13.078 13.068 13.075 13.075

9,0% 0,2% -0,1% 0,1% 0,0%

Communication 3.797 3.628 3.650 3.640 3.647 3.647

-4,4% 0,6% -0,3% 0,2% 0,0%

Navigation 3.936 2.897 2.773 2.763 2.770 2.770

-26,4% -4,3% -0,4% 0,3% 0,0%

Surveillance 3.136 2.751 2.773 2.763 2.770 2.770

-12,3% 0,8% -0,4% 0,3% 0,0%

Search and rescue

Aeronautical information 2.273 1.879 1.890 1.885 1.889 1.889

-17,3% 0,6% -0,3% 0,2% 0,0%

Meteorological services 1.433 889 953 1.038 913 913

-38,0% 7,3% 8,9% -12,1% 0,0%

Supervision costs 769 515 520 518 519 519

-33,0% 0,9% -0,4% 0,3% 0,0%

Other State costs

Total costs 27.324 25.614 25.636 25.674 25.585 25.585

-6,3% 0,1% 0,1% -0,3% 0,0%

50

Complementary information on inflation and on the cost of capital (in '000 euro)

Inflation rate 4,3% 2,5% 4,7% 2,5% 0,5% 0,7% 1,0%

Average operating capital

Of which, average long term assets

Cost of capital before tax (%)

Return on equity (%)

Average interest on debts (%)

51

ANNEX B

STAKEHOLDERS CONSULTATION MATERIAL

HELLENIC AIR NAVIGATION SUPERVISORY AUTHORITY

PERFORMANCE PLAN OF GREECE (RP 1; 2012-2014)

STAKEHOLDERS’ CONSULTATION MEETING - HCAA HQ, 7-6-2011

LIST OF PARTICIPANTS

No. NAME MEMBER OF E-MAIL TEL

1 AMMANN NICOLE SWISS AIRLINES [email protected] +41793122222

2 ANASTASOPOULOU

KALLIRROY

HANSA [email protected] +210 8984133

3 ANDRIKOPOULOU

CONSTANTINA

HCAA/ANSP (DIRECTOR

OF COMMUNICATIONS

DIVISION)

[email protected] +210 8916495

4 BINA EVA HCAA/ANSP [email protected] +210 9972729

5 CHORTARIA

CHRYSSOULA

HCAA/ANSP [email protected] +210 9972729

6 DANNER MARIO AUSTRIAN AIRLINES [email protected] +43 6641 80111 12311

7 GARGARETA NIKI HCAA/ANSP [email protected] +210 8916316

8 GAVANOZIS SPYROS CNS DIRECTOR [email protected] +210 8916521

9 IAKOVAKIS GEORGE HANSA [email protected] +210 8984132

10 KONTOGIANNIS

GERASIMOS

HCAA/ANSP (GENERAL

DIRECTOR)


11 KORYFIDOU ELPIDA HCAA/ANSP(ATS

DIRECTOR)


12 MALIKOUTIS EVANGELOS HANSA [email protected] +210 8984104

13 MARGETOS ODYSSEAS HCAA/ANSP [email protected] +210 9972787, 9645558275

14 O'TOOLE LAURIE IATA (Assistant Director

airport & ATC charges)


15 PANAGIOTOPOULOS

MICHAEL

HANSA (ACTING

DIRECTOR)

[email protected],

[email protected]

+210 8984101

16 PAPAGEORGIOU

EFSTATHIA

HCAA/ANSP [email protected] +210 8916339

17 PASIOPOULOS GEORGIOS CNS UNIT [email protected] +210 8916161

52

18 PECH JACQUES AIR FRANCE [email protected] +33141565715

19 SAREMY TORKAN IATA (Country Manager

Greece & Cyprus)

[email protected] +210 9769516, 6976793325

20 SOTIROPOULOS

ANGELOS

HCAA/ANSP [email protected] +6944527031

21 SYRMA THEODORA HANSA [email protected] +210 8984108

22 TANISKIDOU DIMITRA HCAA/ANSP FMP

MANAGER ACC's


23 TSIOUTRA KLEONIKI METSP [email protected] +210 9699163

24 ZEINI KONSTANTINA METSP [email protected] +210 9699012

53

HELLENIC AIR NAVIGATION SUPERVISORY AUTHORITY

MINUTES OF THE STAKEHOLDERS’ CONSULTATION

FOR THE NATIONAL PERFORMANCE PLAN OF GREECE

REFERENCE PERIOD 1

2012-2014

HCAA HQ, 7 JUNE 2011

54

• The Acting Director of the Hellenic Air Navigation Supervisory

Authority (HANSA), Mr. Michael Panagiotopoulos, opened the

Stakeholders’ Consultation meeting at 9:30 a.m. on 7 June 2011 and

welcomed the attendees (see list as ANNEX).He commented on the fact

that this was the first time such a meeting took place, its importance

for every stakeholder concerned and hoped for a fruitful outcome of

the meeting.

• The Deputy Governor of HCAA, Mr. Gregory Nanidis, also welcomed

those attending and expressed, as former Director of HANSA, the view

that the work done on the Performance Plan was at a very good level

and invited the Airlines’ representatives to feel free to contact him for

any issue that might arise.

• Mrs. Kallirroy Anastasopoulou, on behalf of HANSA, made a brief

introduction to the Greek Performance Plan and presented a set of

slides regarding the key features of the Performance Plan and the

targets set at national level for both the Capacity and Cost-efficiency

performance areas.

• The Assistant Director of IATA, Mr. Laurie O’Toole, thanked everybody and

praised Greece for the excellent work done on the Performance Plan which

was precise and to the point. He also made a reference to the difficulties

regarding the economic situation of Greece. He enquired if the decrease in

the unit rate, which he found very good and welcomed, would not

subsequently be affected by uncontrollable costs. He also stressed out that

the forecasts for the capacity target were too high and not acceptable by IATA

as the delays mean extra revenue loss for the users.

• Mrs. Theodora Syrma of HANSA, responded that the biggest impact on

the unit rate was expected to come from wage cuts and limitations in

investments.

• Mrs. Niki Gargareta from the HCAA/ANSP/Economics and Supply

Division stated that the costs presented reflected the present situation

and there was no possibility to make any other forecasts.

• Mrs. Dimitra Taniskidou the FMP Manager from HCAA/ANSP,

commented that the figures for the ATFM delays were based on the

fact that traffic has increased dramatically but no new staff

recruitments nor any investments for the improvement of the capacity

target were foreseen. As a result, these figures could deteriorate.

• HANSA explained that there is a strong inverse correlation between

the unit rate and the delays.

• On behalf of IATA it was said that the rising figure of ATFM delays

would raise serious concerns from the side of the PRB and commented

on the decreasing number of staff. It was also noted that no investment

plan was included in the Performance Plan.

55

• Mr. Panagiotopoulos and Mr. Malikoutis from HANSA agreed that the

continuous decrease in staff was a major issue and asked IATA for

support on this subject. They also pointed out that under the present

economic conditions there was no plan (at that moment) for new staff

recruitment.

• Mr. Spyros Gavanozis from the HCAA/ANSP/Electronics Division

agreed with HANSA and also requested the support of IATA and IACA

for new staff and investments.

• Mr. Jacques Pech from Air France congratulated HCAA for the good results

on cost efficiency, but thought there should not be any trade-offs between

cost efficiency and capacity : the increase of delays is not acceptable. There

should be at least stabilization.

• Mrs.Dimitra Taniskidou, the FMP Manager from HCAA/ANSP stressed

that traffic continued to increase throughout the years while staff was

decreasing mainly due to retirements. Existing ACC staff has done its

best to manage the traffic but with no investments and no recruitments

it would come as no surprise if even these high ATFM delays would rise

instead of decrease. Support from the Government would be essential

to improve the situation.

• IATA understood that the existing system would need renovation and

asked for a proposal on behalf of HCAA.

• Mrs. Dimitra Taniskidou the FMP Manager from HCAA/ANSP said that

adequate investments were essential for the provision of good services

but as these would take some time to implement it would be crucial to

invest in the human factor. Employees should be rewarded in order to

perform better.

• IATA pointed out that the delays target was as critical as the cost-

efficiency target also for EC and the PRB.

• Mr. Spyros Gavanozis from the HCAA/ANSP/Electronics Division said

that a selection of five of the most crucial investments was made and

this information was available through the LSSIP Greece but pressure

should be put to the relevant Ministries so that these investments could

be implemented.

• IATA advised that these five investments should be included in the

Performance Plan with an explanation of the benefits they would

provide in each target and their relevance with SESAR ATM Master

Plan.

• Mrs. Constantina Andrikopoulou from the HCAA/ANSP

Communications Division summarized the existing situation by pointing

out that HCAA was part of the public sector and this should be taken

into consideration because it meant reduction in salaries across the

56

board, no investments because of the economic situation in Greece

and no possibility for new recruits. She also confirmed that HCAA has

made an effort to expedite approval for the initiation of five major

projects within the next 3 years, which would improve capacity and

cost-efficiency. The relevant information has been included in the

Performance Review Report. However, the procurement budget is

frozen for the time being.

• IATA believes that the targets set at EU-wide level were relatively easy to

achieve by all States, especially the cost-efficiency target in real terms in view

the forecast traffic increase and allowance for inflation.

• Mrs. Theodora Syrma from HANSA said that the targets were decided

when there was a more favorable economic situation throughout

Europe. Given the current financial difficulties these targets might not

met by all the States and that would mean the activation of the alert

mechanisms. Changes in the Performance Plans would also be

probable.

• Mr. Angelos Malikoutis form HANSA pointed out that the human factor

was the most important element, as well as technological investments

& equipment for ATS.

• IATA requested the following information:

o How the cost of capital was calculated

o If the latest Service Units forecast was taken into consideration

o The relationship between the determined costs and possible

changes

o Why investments were not included in the Performance Plan

while they were provided in the LSSIP Greece.

• Mrs. Niki Gargareta from the HCAA/ANSP/Economics and Supply

Division answered that for the calculation of the cost of capital the

government bond rate was taken into account which was around

10,17%.

• Mrs. Elpida Koryfidou from the HCAA/ANSP/ATS Division said that

details on investments were not provided because it was not certain

that they would be made but they were available and they would be

inserted in the Performance Plan.

• IATA commented that if FABs were implemented as originally envisaged it

would be to the benefit of everyone concerned. While FABs were producing

very welcome operational savings in delay and fuel terms, unfortunately they

were not providing real savings that were expected of them. IATA was

disappointed because lots of talking and meeting about FABs had taken place

but without tangible real savings and efficiency results so far. In the second

57

reference period EC targets were likely to more ambitious and they would be

met better if FABs were implemented.

• Mrs. Constantina Andrikopoulou from the HCAA/ANSP/

Communications Division said that the geographical position of Greece

should be considered as it is adjacent to countries not bound by EU

regulations or even EUR Regional procedures and this particularity

affects the efforts that need to be made in terms of personnel,

procedures and systems to achieve interoperability. This has an

impact on both capacity and cost-effectiveness.

• Regarding the terminal charges IATA wanted to know if Greece would

subsidize them as it did the two previous years, a measure that was

very welcomed from the users.

• Mrs. Theodora Syrma from HANSA responded that the same proposal

for a 50% subsidy on the terminal charges for the year 2012 was made

to the relevant Ministries and the answer was still pending but was

expected around the end of July. This measure was considered very

important given the crucial contribution of tourism in the economy of

Greece.

• IATA pointed out that a weakness of the Performance Plan of Greece was the

lack of investments. The cost-efficiency target was welcomed but the ATFM

delays were unacceptable taking into consideration the rising prices in fuel.

• Mr. Michael Panagiotopoulos from HANSA said that that with a small

rise in the unit rate the benefits on capacity would be multiple.

• Mrs. Dimitra Taniskidou the FMP Manager from HCAA/ANSP said that

regarding the capacity target two elements should be considered, the

staff reduction and the lack of investments.

• IATA stated that, according to the Performance Scheme Regulation, EC and

PRB would comment on the performance plan recommending what has to be

done. IATA was reporting its views and requirments of all the NPPs to the

EC/PRB.

• Mrs. Theodora Syrma from HANSA noted that the measures

undertaken by the Greek government under the agreement with the

IMF and EU have an impact on delays and it’s up to the EU to either

consider these delays acceptable under the current financial

circumstances or propose and enable appropriate measures to

alleviate the problem.

• IATA asked about the status of the privatization of the Airports and

hoped that if this should happen there would not be imposition of fees

as high as in AIA.

• Mr. Jacques Pech from Air France said that for Air France the routes

towards Greece were increasing because of an increasing market, but

58

also due to the reasonable cost of navigation charges in Greece. But

the increase from Air France and all other airlines should be helped by

good performances in capacity from HCAA. Therefore he requests that

the delays issue be dealt.

• Mrs. Nicole Ammann from Swiss Air said that it was clear that

increases in traffic should be dealt with by adequate investments.

• Mr. Laurie O’Toole from IATA thanked everybody for the good

cooperation.

• Mr. Michael Panagiotopoulos from HANSA thanked the participants

and closed the consultation meeting at 12:00 on 7 June 2011.

HANSA Performance Plan 2012-2014 Greece

Documents

Transcript of HANSA Performance Plan 2012-2014 Greece