Performance Review Report

EUROCONTROLEUROCONTROL

PRR 2009

Performance Review Report

An Assessment of Air Traffic Management in Europe during the Calendar Year 2009

Performance Review Commission I May 2010

For any further information please contact:

Performance Review Unit, 96 Rue de la Fusée,B-1130 Brussels, Belgium

Tel: +32 2 729 3956Fax: +32 2 729 9108

[email protected]://www.eurocontrol.int/prc

PR

R 2009 - M

ay 2010P

erform

ance R

eview R

epo

rt

PRR_2009 428x297.indd 1 19/05/10 16:58

Background

This report has been produced by the Performance Review Commission (PRC). The PRC was established by the Permanent Commission of EUROCONTROL in accordance with the ECAC Institutional Strategy 1997. One objective of this strategy is “to introduce a strong, transparent and independent performance review and target setting system to facilitate more effective management of the European ATM system, encourage mutual accountability for system performance…”

All PRC publications are available from the website: http://www.eurocontrol.int/prc

Notice

The PRC has made every effort to ensure that the information and analysis contained in this document are as accurate and complete as possible. Only information from quoted sources has been used and information relating to named parties has been checked with the parties concerned. Despite these precautions, should you find any errors or inconsistencies we would be grateful if you could please bring them to the PRU’s attention.

The PRU’s e-mail address is [email protected]

Copyright notice and Disclaimer

© European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation (EUROCONTROL)

This document is published by the Performance Review Commission in the interest of the exchange of information.

It may be copied in whole or in part providing that the copyright notice and disclaimer are included. The information contained in this document may not be modified without prior written permission from the Performance Review Commission.

The views expressed herein do not necessarily reflect the official views or policy of EUROCONTROL, which makes no warranty, either implied or express, for the information contained in this document, neither does it assume any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of this information.

Printed by EUROCONTROL, 96, rue de la Fusée, B-1130 Brussels, Belgium. The PRC’s website address is http://www.eurocontrol.int/prc. The PRU’s e-mail address is [email protected].

About the Performance Review Commission

The Performance Review Commission (PRC) provides independent advice on European Air Traffic Management (ATM) Performance to the EUROCONTROL Commission through the Provisional Council.

The PRC was established in 1998, following the adoption of the European Civil Aviation Conference (ECAC) Institutional Strategy the previous year. A key feature of this Strategy is that “an independent Performance Review System covering all aspects of ATM in the ECAC area will be established to put greater emphasis on performance and improved cost-effectiveness, in response to objectives set at a political level”.

The PRC reviews the performance of the European ATM System under various Key Performance Areas. It proposes performance targets, assesses to what extent agreed targets and high-level objectives are met and seeks to ensure that they are achieved. The PRC/PRU ana-lyses and benchmarks the cost-effectiveness and productivity of Air Navigation Service Providers in its annual ATM cost-effectiveness (ACE) Benchmarking reports. It also produces ad hoc reports on specific subjects.

Through its reports, the PRC seeks to assist stakeholders in understanding from a global perspective why, where, when, and possibly how, ATM performance should be improved, in knowing which areas deserve special attention, and in learning from past successes and mistakes. The spirit of these reports is neither to praise nor to criticise, but to help everyone involved in effectively improving perfor-mance in the future.

The PRC holds 5 plenary meetings a year, in addition to taskforce and ad hoc meetings. The PRC also holds consultation meetings with stakeholders on specific subjects.

The PRC consists of 12 Members, including the Chairman and Vice-Chairman:

Mr. John Arscott Chairman Mr. Fritz Feitl Vice-ChairmanMr. Ralf Berghof Dr Ricardo GenovaMr. Carlo Bernasconi Mr Mustafa KilicMr Hannes Bjurstrom Mr Keld LudvigsenMr. Jean-Yves Delhaye Mr. Jaime ValadaresMr. Dragan Draganov Mr Jan Van Doorn

PRC Members must have senior professional experience of air traffic management (planning, technical, operational or economic as-pects) and/or safety or economic regulation in one or more of the following areas: government regulatory bodies, air navigation ser-vices, airports, aircraft operations, military, research and development.

Once appointed, PRC Members must act completely independently of States, national and international organisations.

The Performance Review Unit (PRU) supports the PRC and operates administratively under, but independently of, the EUROCONTROL Agen-cy. The PRU’s e-mail address is [email protected].

The PRC can be contacted via the PRU or through its website http://www.eurocontrol.int/prc.

PRC PROCESSES

The PRC reviews ATM performance issues on its own initiative, at the request of the deliberating bodies of EUROCONTROL or of third parties. As already stated, it produces annual Performance Review Reports, ACE reports and ad hoc reports.

The PRC gathers relevant information, consults concerned parties, draws conclusions, and submits its reports and recommendations for deci-sion to the Permanent Commission, through the Provisional Council. PRC publications can be found at www.eurocontrol.int/prc where copies can also be ordered.

EUROCONTROL

PRR_2009 428x297.indd 2 19/05/10 16:58

DOCUMENT IDENTIFICATION SHEET

DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION

Document Title

Performance Review Commission Performance Review Report covering the calendar year 2009 (PRR 2009)

PROGRAMME REFERENCE INDEX EDITION: EDITION DATE:

PRC Performance Review Report FINAL 06 May 2010

SUMMARY

This report of the Performance Review Commission analyses the performance of the European Air Traffic Management System in 2009 under the Key Performance Areas of Safety, Punctuality & Predictability, Capacity & Delays, Flight Efficiency, Environmental impact, and Cost-Effectiveness.

Keywords Air Traffic Management Performance Measurement Performance Areas Performance Indicators ATM ANS

CONTACT:

Performance Review Unit, EUROCONTROL, 96 Rue de la Fusée, B-1130 Brussels, Belgium. Tel: +32 2 729 3956, E-Mail: [email protected] http://www.eurocontrol.int/prc

DOCUMENT STATUS AND TYPE

STATUS DISTRIBUTION

Draft General Public Proposed Issue EUROCONTROL Organisation Released Issue Restricted

INTERNAL REFERENCE NAME: PRR 2009

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY PRR 2009

i

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

KPIs DATATARGET ACTUAL VARIATION TREND

KPIsTARGET ACTUAL VARIATION TREND



DATA

DATA

DATA

2009

MEASURE

2009 is marked by an unprecedented drop in air traffic (-6.6% in 2009 vs. 0.4% in 2008). 2010 is forecast to show a slight positive growth.

▼9.4 MFLIGHTS

TRAFFIC

There was no ATM-induced accident in 2009.

DATA

2008 2009YEARLY

VARIATION

MEASURE

=00ATM-Induced accidents

AVIATION SAFETY

DATA

2008 2009YEARLY

VARIATIONYEARLY % VARIATON

MEASURE

In line with other operational indicators, the variability of arrival times decreased further in 2009 and more flights arrived ahead of their scheduled arrival time which is consistent with a higher share of "early arrivals" in Punctuality.

-4.3%▼18.4 min19.2 minStandardDeviation

PREDICTABILITY

DATA

2008 2009YEARLY

VARIATIONYEARLY % VARIATON

MEASURE

Air transport punctuality was driven by the severe traffic reduction and showed a considerable improvement compared to 2008.

▼17.9%21.6%Arrivals > 15

min %

PUNCTUALITY

EUROPEAN LEVEL - AVIATION PERSPECTIVE

YEARLY % VARIATON

-6.6%

2008

10.1 M

-17%

01

23

456

78

910

1112

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

mill

ion

IFR

flig

hts

-10%-5%

0%5%

10%15%

20%25%30%

35%40%

45%50%

Yearly variation

IFR flights

TRAFFIC ~ 9.4 M

ESRA 2008

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

1999

2000*

2001*

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

% o

f flig

hts

DEPARTURES delayed bymore than 15 min. (%)

ARRIVALS delayed by morethan 15 min. (%)

ARRIVALS more than 15min. ahead of schedule (%)

Source:AEA* & CODA

Flights to/from Europe

1 12

1 1

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

Tota

l num

ber of a

ccci

dents

Direct ATM

Accidents

Trend

data source: Flight Safety Foundation - Aviation Safety Net

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

20

25

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

Arr

ival

tim

e (c

ompa

red

to s

ched

ule

)

in m

inut

es

20th Percentile

80th Percentile

Standard Deviation

YEARLY VARIATION

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY


ii





DATATARGET ACTUAL VARIATION TREND

DATA

DATA

DATA 2008TARGET ACTUAL

YEARLY VARIATION

TARGET MET

KPIs

No▼Reg: 11ANSP: 70

<70%MATURITY

SAFETY

Aided by the unprecedented drop in traffic, en-route ATFM delays show a strong improvement compared to 2008.

Due to poor performance in a small number of ACCs, the European target was not met in 2009.

DATATARGET ACTUAL

Summer VARIATION

TARGET MET

KPIs

No▼1.2 1.0MINUTES/

FLIGHT

ATFM DELAYS (EN-ROUTE)

Although the European horizontal flight efficiency target could not be met in 2009, flight efficiency improved in terms of relative additional flight distance.

DATATARGET ACTUAL

YEARLY VARIATION

TARGET MET

KPIs

No▼47.642.2KM / FLIGHT

FLIGHT - EFFICIENCY

Based on forecast data of November 2009, the PC target for 2008-2010 (3% per year) will not be met.

DATA 2008 TARGET ACTUAL

YEARLY VARIATION

TARGET MET

KPIs

The PRC notional target over 2003-2008 period (-14%, i.e. 3% per year) has been met.

▼-2.0%-3.0%REAL UNIT COST/ KM

COST - EFFECTIVENESS

EUROPEAN LEVEL - ANS PERSPECTIVE

The Provisional Council target is "to raise the framework safety maturity level of ANSPs and National Regulators to a minimum of 70% in each State by end of 2008".

DATATARGET ACTUAL

YEARLY VARIATION

TARGET MET

KPIs

Despite an increase in capacity related costs, total economic en-route unit cost decreased by 6% in 2009 which was due to a substantial reduction in service quality related costs.

▼1.1 €/km None TOTAL UNIT

COST/ KM

TOTAL ANS USER COSTS (EN-ROUTE)

The number of ANSPs and Regulators below acceptable maturity decreased but was still far from 0 in the survey conducted in 2009.

N/A(€2008)

1.3 1.41.6

1.9

1.21.2

1.8

5.5

1.2

3.63.1

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

En-

rout

e A

TF

M d

elay

/ fli

ght

(min

.)

OTHER (Special event,military, etc.)

WEATHER

ATC Other (strike, equipment,etc.)

ATC Capacity & StaffingTarget

Summer

47.648.848.948.248.7

0

20

40

60

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

rout

e ex

tens

ion

(km

/flig

ht)

Direct en-route extension

TMA Interface

Agreed target

- 2 km per flight (agreed target)

Yes

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

P

2010

P

2011

P

2012

P

2013

P

2014

PTota

l en-r

oute

AN

S c

ost

s (€

2008)/ k

m

100

120

140

160

180

200

220

Costs Per Km

Total Costs (1999= index 100)

Traffic (1999=index 100)

PRC Target

All States in CRCO system

PRC notional targetPC adopted

target

7

33

28

24

18

11

30

2219

119

13

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

N°

of e

ntit

ies

matu

rity

belo

w 7

0%

ANSPs

Regulators

Target

-2%

1%-1%-1

%-6

%

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

€2008/k

m Cost of route extension

Cost of ATFM delay

Cost of capacity

Figure 1: Key Performance indicators in 2009

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY


iii

Introduction

PRR 2009 presents an assessment of the performance of European Air Navigation Services (ANS) for the calendar year 2009, which was marked by an unprecedented traffic downturn.

Key Performance Indicators corresponding to both aviation and ANS perspectives are shown in Figure 1 together with approved targets.

Traffic

Due to the economic crisis, the number of controlled flights in Europe dropped to 9.4 million in 2009, an unprecedented decrease of minus 6.6% compared to 2008, which reduced traffic to 2005-2006 levels.

Average daily traffic in Europe was around 25,800 flights a day, compared to 27,500 in 2008. However, a small number of States, notably in the South-Eastern part of Europe, recorded positive growth of up to +9%.

All market segments shrank, in particular Business Aviation (-14%), Cargo and charter flights (-13%) and Scheduled flights (-7%). “Low cost” flights decreased by -2%.

For 2010, EUROCONTROL forecasts that the number of flights in Europe will grow by +0.8%, compared to a long-term average of +2.8% annual growth, reflecting continued uncertain economic growth.

million IFR flights per year0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

2002

2004

2006

2008

2010

2012

2014

2016

FEB 2010 Medium Forecast

source : EUROCONTROL

( before 1997, estimation based on Euro 88 traffic variation)

TRAFFIC 9.4 M (-6.6%)

% annual growth-10%

-5%

0%

5%

10%

source : EUROCONTROL/STATFOR (ESRA2008)

FEB 2010 FORECAST

Safety

There was no accident with direct ATM contribution in 2009 involving commercial aviation.

ESARR 2 data for 2008 shows a decrease in the number of high-severity Separation Minima Infringements and runway incursions being reported. However, the number of ‘not investigated’ ATM safety occurrences remains high. It is noteworthy that, even in 2010, the ESARR2 data for 2008 remains provisional. This is why the PRC considers that the current manual reporting should be complemented by independent monitoring based on automatic safety data acquisition tools.

There is a continuous increase in the reporting of incidents in many States. However, it remains of major concern that the number of reporting States remains relatively low (29) and has not increased in the last five years.

The PC target of all Member States reaching at least 70% safety maturity by the end of 2008 was not met by 11 Regulators and 7 ANSPs. However, the average safety maturity at the end of 2008 was 82% for ANSPs and 76% for Regulators.

Just culture is a key element to enhance safety levels in all areas of aviation. However, not all the States have taken the necessary measures to achieve a fully non-punitive reporting system. All States should be urged by EUROCONTROL and the EC to have an appropriate legal, cultural and institutional structure to enable harmonised safety measurement and reporting.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY


iv

In accordance with SES II legislation, safety targets will be set and monitored for EU and associated States starting from 2012, which represents significant progress. This could be extended to all EUROCONTROL Member States by decision of the Provisional Council.

Aviation is a global industry with accountabilities and obligations at international, regional, national and local levels. A clear structure with well defined accountabilities at each level is essential to develop comprehensive and well considered initiatives to improve safety across Europe and the world.

There is an urgent need to clarify the institutional, legal and organisational aspects related to the deployment of automatic safety data acquisition, with close cooperation between ICAO, the EU, EUROCONTROL and States

Air Transport Network performance

Virtually all performance indicators related to operational air transport performance show a notable improvement in 2009.

The share of flights delayed by more than 15 minutes compared to schedule decreased from 21.6% in 2008 to 17.9% in 2009. This needs to be seen in context with the significant drop in traffic (-6.6%) which reduced traffic to 2006 levels.

The unprecedented drop in traffic reduced demand far below planned capacity levels in 2009. The resulting spare capacity in most areas (airlines, airports, ATC) translated into better turnaround performance (airlines, airports, security, etc.), a reduction of ATFM en-route delays and resulting positive effects for the network.

In 2009, ANS-related delays (including weather related delays handled by ANS) accounted for some 25% of total departure delays, compared to 28% in 2008.

There is a high correlation between the ANS delays reported by airlines in CODA and the ATFM delay calculated by the CFMU.

26

.9%

25

.2%

18

.3%

17

.2%

18

.8%

20

.4%

21

.8%

22

.1%

21

.6%

17

.9%

7.2

%

6.7

%

6.4

%

6.8

%

7.4

% 10

.1%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

2000

*

2001

*

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

% o

f fli

ghts

DEPARTURES delayed by more than 15 min. (%)

ARRIVALS delayed by more than 15 min. (%)

ARRIVALS more than 15 min. ahead of schedule (%)

Source: AEA*/ CODA

All flights to/from Europe

Although ATFM slot adherence shows a continuous improvement between 2003 and 2009, departures outside ATFM slots remain disproportionately high at some airports. Improvements are expected with application of the ATFM Regulation and oversight by the Network Management function.

Flight plan adherence is still a major concern: it should be monitored with appropriate tools and encouraged to avoid over deliveries and waste of resources

Operational En-route performance

Although ATFM en-route delay decreased from 1.9 to 1.2 minutes per flight in summer 2009, the en-route delay target of 1 minute per flight was not met in 2009, notwithstanding the significant decline in traffic which reduced traffic levels far below planned ANSP capacity in 2009.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY


v

1.91.61.41.31.21.21.83.13.62.9 4.1 1.25.50

1

2

3

4

5

6

19

97

19

98

19

99

20

00

20

01

20

02

20

03

20

04

20

05

20

06

20

07

20

08

20

09

En-

rout

e A

TF

M d

elay

/ fli

ght

(min

.)

OTHER (Specialevent, military, etc.)

WEATHER

ATC Other (strike,equipment, etc.)

ATC Capacity &Staffing

PC Target

Target: 1.0min/flight

Actual: 1.2min/flight

Summer ATFM en-route delay target (May-Oct.)

source: EUROCONTROL/CFMU-10%

-5%

0%

5%

10%

traf

fic g

row

th (

%)

Traffic growth(Summer)

For the full year, the percentage of flights delayed by more than 15 minutes due to en-route ATFM restriction decreased from 4.0% in 2008 to 2.6% in 2009.

While most European ACCs provided sufficient capacity, overall en-route ATFM delay did not decrease in line with traffic, which was due to only a limited number of ACCs. The six most congested ACCs (out of 71) accounted for 50% of all en-route ATFM delay in 2009.

En-route ATFM delays originated mainly from Warsaw ACC (10%), Madrid ACC (8%) and the South-east axis stretching from Austria via Croatia, Greece and Cyprus (28%). The German ACCs Rhein/Karlsruhe and Langen together accounted for some 18% of total en-route delays in 2009.

Shortcomings in the planning and deployment of staff appear to be the main drivers of en-route ATFM delays at the most congested ACCs. The planning and management of capacity is the core responsibility of ANSPs. At present, there is limited information for the review of capacity plans and their execution, e.g. staff availability.

The unprecedented drop in traffic helped to close existing capacity gaps. It is important to continue to close existing capacity gaps, to match capacity plans with forecast demand and to have some flexibility in accommodating unforeseen changes in traffic.

In view of the staffing issues and the high number of planned ATM system upgrades over the next three years, an adequate and pro-active capacity planning at local and ATM network level is essential to make sure that delay targets are met. The network management function has an important role to play.

The SES II package, especially capacity target setting and the network management function, is expected to improve the capacity planning process at local and network levels.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY


vi

Even though the European horizontal en-route flight efficiency target could not be met in 2009, improvements are notable. Total savings in European airspace due to improved en-route design and flight planning amounted to approximately 36 000 tonnes of fuel in 2009 which corresponds to 120 000 tonnes of CO2.

En-route airspace design is by far the most important driver of en-route extension. The improvement of flight efficiency is a pan-European issue which requires the development and the implementation of a Pan-European network improvement plan in cooperation with States and ANSPs.

4,1%

4,1%

4,0%

4,0%

3,9%

3,7%

6,0% 5,9% 5,8% 5,8% 5,6% 5,4%

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

TMA interface Direct route extension

Flight distance compared to great circle

Implementation of indicators by more States and sharing of best practice should be further encouraged. Progress still needs to be made both in developing and offering routes through shared airspace and ensuring that these routes are effectively used by civil users, especially during weekends when military activity is minimal.

With a view to the start of the SES performance scheme in 2012, more work is required to ensure that all parameters necessary for the evaluation of the effective use of shared airspace are available.

ANS Performance at main airports

There have been some improvements in ANS performance at airports in 2009

Air Navigation Services at the top 20 major airports can adequately sustain the declared airport capacity in daily operations during favourable conditions, with the exception of Vienna, Athens and partially Madrid.

Overall, the performance in Athens, Istanbul, Madrid and Wien has significantly deteriorated, mainly due to capacity constraints.

There were significant improvements in the approach phase at London LHR (20% reduction of additional time) without increase in ATFM delay, under slightly reduced traffic (-2%).

ANS performance at airports is more affected by weather conditions than traffic changes with the European system of airport slot allocation.

The implementation of operational concepts, systems and procedures to improve ANS performance during unfavourable weather conditions, especially high winds, should be expedited. The application of time-based separation in final approach instead of distance-based separation will certainly improve the situation. This will require, inter alia, Meteorological infrastructures, AMAN/DMAN tools and CDM.

Environment

Sustainable development and global emissions are on the top of the political agenda. The significant fuel efficiency improvements in global aviation over the past were not sufficient to realise carbon neutral growth which subsequently resulted in an increase in aviation related CO2 emissions over the years.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY


vii

Aviation represents 3.5% of man made CO2 emissions in Europe. Long-haul flights (>3 hours), for which there is virtually no substitute, account for 13% of flights, but 60% of fuel burn. Flights shorter than one hour, which could possibly be substituted, represent 23% of flights, but only 4% of total fuel burn in Europe.

The average ATM fuel efficiency is estimated to be close to 94%. This is good news but means that there is limited scope for improvement from ANS.

Total ANS actionable CO2 are estimated to be around 6% of total aviation related emissions and account therefore of some 0.2% of total CO2 emissions in Europe. Due to inherent necessary (safety) and desired (noise, capacity) limitations, the ANS actionable inefficiencies cannot be reduced to zero.

Horizontal en-route flight

path3.6%

Vertical en-route flight

profile0.6%

Airborne terminal

1.1%

Taxi-out phase0.7%

Estimated average fuel efficiency

94%

6%

Source: PRC analysis

The extension of the horizontal en-route flight path is the main component (3.6% of total fuel burn) followed by delays in the terminal area (1.1% of total fuel burn).

Significant fuel efficiency improvements could be realised by optimising arrival flows into main airports. In the short term, high priority should be given (1) to the optimisation of the route network and (2) to the implementation of arrival managers at main airports. In the longer term (SESAR), the focus should move to a more integrated management of the flight trajectory geared to optimising arrival time.

Noise and local air quality are major concerns of residents in the vicinity of major airports. The implementation of local restrictions implies complex trade-offs between noise, emissions, capacity and safety which need to take into account local specificities.

The implementation of Airport Collaborative Decision Making (CDM) at more European airports would help to improve taxi efficiency and hence local air quality and improve the accuracy and timeliness of information locally and at network level.

Cost-effectiveness

The PRC cost-effectiveness target proposed in 2003 (i.e. -14% decrease in unit costs for the period 2003-2008) has been achieved.

-1.0%5.5%-2.0%

-3.5%-3.5%

-4.3%-2.8%

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

P

2010

P

2011

P

2012

P

2013

P

2014

P

Tot

al e

n-ro

ute

AN

S c

osts

(€2

008)

/ km

100

120

140

160

180

200

220

Costs Per Km Total Costs (1999= index 100) Traff ic (1999=index 100)

All States in CRCO system Source : EUROCONTROL

PRC notional target PC adopted target

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY


viii

This achievement directly translates into “savings” of some €3 billion with respect to constant 2003 unit costs. The positive traffic growth during the 2003-2008 period has greatly contributed to this achievement, along with greater cost-effectiveness awareness among a majority of ANSPs.

According to benchmarking findings, the decrease in unit costs between 2004 and 2008 is mainly due to the fact that support costs remained fairly constant while traffic increased by +17%. This is consistent with expectations of scale effects in the provision of ATC services. A main part of support costs, which represent 70% of ATM/CNS provision costs, are generally fixed costs in the short and medium terms and are not expected to change proportionally with traffic volumes.

However, 2008 marks the end of a positive business cycle for the European ANS system and en-route unit costs are planned to sharply increase in 2009 and 2010. As a result, the Pan-European target adopted by the Provisional Council in Nov. 2007 (-6% reduction of unit costs between 2008 and 2010) will not be met.

The economic downturn, which became apparent in summer 2008, has affected the aviation community throughout 2009 with unprecedented severity, requiring greater flexibility on ANSPs and EUROCONTROL to adjust to new unfavourable economic conditions. In this context, no doubt that the pressure to genuinely improve cost-effectiveness is high on the agenda of airspace users’ expectations.

Several European ANSPs have revised their plans accordingly and implemented cost-containment measures for 2009 and 2010. All the five largest States plan to decrease their en-route cost-base in 2009 or in 2010. EUROCONTROL has decided to freeze its 2010 cost-base at 2008 levels. It is important that these planned cost reductions materialise in order to minimise under-recoveries that will negatively impact airspace users through higher charges in future years.

It is however important that the implementation of cost-containment measures does not contribute to jeopardize the provision of future ATC capacity. The decrease in traffic offers some breathing space for ANSPs to prioritise the projects with the most promising capacity outcomes, taking into account trade-offs, so that there is a better match between capacity and demand when traffic growth resumes.

The current economic crisis clearly shows the limits of the full cost-recovery regime where the under-recoveries generated in 2008 and 2009 will have to be borne by airspace users in future years. In the context of SES II, the EC is developing Implementing Rules on the performance scheme and also amending the Implementing Rules on the Charging Scheme. These Implementing Rules foresee the introduction of an incentive scheme based on risk sharing and on the principle of determined costs. This should contribute to better incentivise performance improvements and balance risks between States/ANSPs and airspace users.

The transparency of terminal ANS costs charged to airspace users is gradually improving with the setting of the 2010 terminal navigation charges according to the EC Charging Scheme Regulation. However, the quality and completeness of data provided vary significantly across States. This information is now analysed for the first time in a PRR to provide an overview and an initial assessment of terminal ANS cost-effectiveness.

The PRC considers that, in the context of SES II performance scheme, it is important to start effective monitoring of terminal ANS cost-effectiveness in order to pave the way for the setting of future EU-wide cost-efficiency targets.

Economic Assessment

The indicators related to ANS performance at airports are not yet available with a sufficient level of precision and therefore the economic assessment is limited to en-route ANS. Work is needed to include ANS performance at airports in the economic assessment as soon as possible. This is particularly important in the context of the SES II performance scheme.

With the exception of safety where minimum agreed levels must be guaranteed, it is important to develop a consolidated view in order to monitor overall economic performance for those KPAs for which economic trade-offs are possible (costs related to capacity provision vs. costs associated with service quality).

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY


ix

The significant improvements observed for direct en-route ANS costs between 2004 and 2008 were almost cancelled-out by increases in en-route ATFM delays and en-route extension. This indicates the importance of managing the entire system performance.

0.9 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8

0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3

0.06 0.07 0.08 0.10

0.8

0.2

0.09 0.07

-2% -1% -1% 1% -6%

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009P

€2

00

8/k

m

Cost of ATFMdelay

Cost of routeextension

Cost of capacity


Notwithstanding an increase of the unit costs for en-route ANS capacity provision in 2009, total economic en-route unit costs show a significant decline (-6%) due the reduction of en-route ATFM delays and flight efficiency improvements which were to a large extent driven by the significant reduction of traffic in 2009.

The first reference period of the SES II performance scheme starting in 2012 will mark a significant change for European ANS performance and it is important to ensure the development of sound and relevant key indicators which serve as a foundation for target setting

Outlook

After a continuous traffic growth for a number of years, at very high rates in some parts of Europe, the unprecedented downturn due to the economic crisis in 2008/09 cancelled-out three full years of traffic growth. Air traffic dropped by 6.6% in 2009, which cut traffic back to 2006 levels.

Airlines already in a highly competitive market were forced to quickly adapt to the drastic changes in market conditions by quickly cutting costs and capacity. Despite all cost cutting measures and capacity reductions in response to the drop in demand, airlines expect the highest annual loss ever reported for the industry in 2009. The Association of European Airlines (AEA) forecasts an aggregate loss for its members of € 3 billion which is more than 50% higher than the losses following the events of 11 September 2001.

Despite specific cost containment measures, ANSPs showed a limited ability to adjust costs in line with the exceptional fall in air traffic in 2009. The limited degree of flexibility to quickly adjust to changing conditions is partly due to the characteristics of the cost structure which is largely fixed in the short term but also due to the lack of incentives provided by the current ANS funding system which is based on the “full cost recovery principle”.

The ANS system response to the drop in traffic shows the limitations of the current ANS funding system. Significant under-recoveries generated in 2008 and 2009 will have to be borne by airspace users in future years, resulting in an increase of the unit rates in a time when the industry starts to recover.

In the context of the SES II performance scheme, the EC is developing implementing rules which require the setting of binding national/FAB performance targets in four performance areas (Safety, Cost-effectiveness, Capacity, Environment) and the introduction of corresponding incentive schemes.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY


x

The first reference period of the SES II performance scheme starting in 2012 will mark a significant change for European ANS performance and it is important to ensure the development of sound and relevant key indicators which serve as a foundation for target setting.

The incentivisation of ANS performance would need to be linked to a mechanism which balances the risks between States/ANSPs and airspace users. ANSPs should be allowed to build up financial reserves when they perform well (service quality, cost efficiency) but should have to bear a risk when traffic falls below planned levels or when their costs are above pre-determined levels.

Despite the unprecedented drop in traffic and the resulting need to contain costs, adequate and pro-active capacity planning at local and ATM network level is essential to continue to close existing capacity gaps and to be able to cope with future traffic demand while managing all the planned ATM system upgrades without excessive and costly service quality penalties.

A proactive capacity planning and management is especially important considering the fact that structural decisions concerning capacity (recruitment, investment, major airspace redesign, and operational agreements within FABs) typically have an operational effect after 3-5 years.

In this context, the setting of binding capacity performance targets as part of the SES performance scheme will need to be supported by locally drawn up performance plans and a reinforced network management function to be established within the Single European Sky initiative.

Recommendations The Provisional Council is invited to:

a. note the PRC’s Performance Review Report (PRR 2009) and to submit it to the Permanent Commission;

b. request States and ANSPs whose maturity level is below 70% to urgently resolve the related issues and to request the Director General to support them as appropriate;

c. request States and Air Navigation Service Providers to implement “just culture” where this is not already the case;

d. encourage States and ANSPs to use automatic detection and reporting tools and to further improve the transparency of ANS safety;

e. note the importance of a balanced approach to performance: increases in en-route delays over the period 2003-2008 nearly cancelled out the benefits of improvements in cost-effectiveness;

f. urge the ANSPs concerned to resolve urgently the issues leading to high delays in the top 30 delay-generating sectors, and to request the Director General to assist them in this respect;

g. urge ANSPs, given the severe economic downturn, to effectively implement the planned cost-containment measures so that:

i. they materialise into genuine cost-savings for airspace users in the cost bases for 2010 and subsequent years and that;

ii. they contribute to improving the total economic cost of ANS and do not compromise the provision of future ATC capacity;

h. urge:

i. States, ANSPs, airspace users and the Agency to further improve the design and use of airspace for both civil and military needs, and

ii. ANSPs and airlines to make more effective use of airspace released to civil operations;

i. encourage airport stakeholders (Airport operators, coordinators, ANS providers and airlines) to constructively engage in the PRC-led process of development of indicators and targets addressing operational performance at and around airports and in the building of a comprehensive and reliable data base that can adequately support it.

xi

T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY........................................................................................................................... I

INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................... III TRAFFIC...................................................................................................................................................... III SAFETY ....................................................................................................................................................... III AIR TRANSPORT NETWORK PERFORMANCE ................................................................................................IV OPERATIONAL EN-ROUTE PERFORMANCE ...................................................................................................IV ANS PERFORMANCE AT MAIN AIRPORTS.....................................................................................................VI ENVIRONMENT............................................................................................................................................VI COST-EFFECTIVENESS ................................................................................................................................VII ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT ..........................................................................................................................VIII OUTLOOK....................................................................................................................................................IX RECOMMENDATIONS....................................................................................................................................X

PART I- BACKGROUND............................................................................................................................ 1

1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................ 1

1.1 PURPOSE OF THE REPORT ................................................................................................................ 1 1.2 STRUCTURE OF THE REPORT............................................................................................................ 1 1.3 INSTITUTIONAL BACKGROUND........................................................................................................ 2 1.4 IMPLEMENTATION STATUS OF PC DECISIONS ON PRC RECOMMENDATIONS.................................... 3

2 TRAFFIC .............................................................................................................................................. 5

2.1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................... 5 2.2 AIR TRAFFIC STATISTICS................................................................................................................. 5 2.3 TRAFFIC GROWTH........................................................................................................................... 7 2.4 TRAFFIC FORECASTS ....................................................................................................................... 9 2.5 TRAFFIC PREDICTABILITY AND ANS FLEXIBILITY......................................................................... 10 2.6 TRAFFIC COMPOSITION................................................................................................................. 12 2.7 COMPLEXITY AND TRAFFIC VARIABILITY..................................................................................... 12 2.8 CONCLUSIONS............................................................................................................................... 15

PART II - KEY PERFORMANCE AREAS ............................................................................................. 16

3 SAFETY .............................................................................................................................................. 16

3.1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................. 16 3.2 KEY SAFETY INDICATORS.............................................................................................................. 17 3.3 SAFETY MATURITY SURVEYS ....................................................................................................... 19 3.4 NEW SAFETY INDICATORS PROPOSED BY SAFREP ....................................................................... 21 3.5 EC SAFETY LEGISLATION AND SES II ........................................................................................... 22 3.6 ICAO CONTINUOUS MONITORING AND SES II PERFORMANCE SCHEME....................................... 23 3.7 JUST CULTURE.............................................................................................................................. 24 3.8 TRANSPARENCY AND SHARING OF SAFETY INFORMATION............................................................. 25 3.9 AUTOMATIC SAFETY DATA ACQUISITION..................................................................................... 26 3.10 CONCLUSIONS............................................................................................................................... 27

4 AIR TRANSPORT NETWORK PERFORMANCE....................................................................... 29

4.1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................. 29 4.2 AIR TRANSPORT PUNCTUALITY .................................................................................................... 30 4.3 SCHEDULING OF AIR TRANSPORT OPERATIONS.............................................................................. 31 4.4 PREDICTABILITY OF AIR TRANSPORT OPERATIONS ........................................................................ 33 4.5 DRIVERS OF DEPARTURE DELAYS.................................................................................................. 34 4.6 REACTIONARY DELAYS................................................................................................................. 37 4.7 NETWORK MANAGEMENT (ATFM)............................................................................................... 39 4.8 CONCLUSIONS............................................................................................................................... 42

5 OPERATIONAL EN-ROUTE PERFORMANCE .......................................................................... 43

xii

5.1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................. 43 5.2 EN-ROUTE ATFM DELAYS............................................................................................................ 43 5.3 EN-ROUTE FLIGHT EFFICIENCY..................................................................................................... 51 5.4 NATIONAL AND REGIONAL IMPACT ON HORIZONTAL FLIGHT EFFICIENCY..................................... 56 5.5 ACCESS TO AND USE OF SHARED AIRSPACE ................................................................................... 57 5.6 CONCLUSIONS............................................................................................................................... 59

6 ANS PERFORMANCE AT MAIN AIRPORTS.............................................................................. 61

6.1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................. 61 6.2 HIGH LEVEL ANS-RELATED PERFORMANCE AT AIRPORTS (2008-2009) ....................................... 63 6.3 ANS-RELATED SERVICE QUALITY OBSERVED AT THE ANALYSED AIRPORTS ................................. 65 6.4 CONCLUSIONS............................................................................................................................... 70

7 ENVIRONMENT ............................................................................................................................... 72

7.1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................. 72 7.2 REDUCING THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF AVIATION................................................................ 72 7.3 ATM CONTRIBUTION TOWARDS REDUCING CO2 EMISSIONS IN EUROPE ....................................... 78 7.4 REDUCING AVIATION’S ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AT/AROUND AIRPORTS .................................... 82 7.5 CONCLUSIONS............................................................................................................................... 86

8 COST-EFFECTIVENESS ................................................................................................................. 87

8.1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................. 87 8.2 EN-ROUTE COST-EFFECTIVENESS KPI FOR EUROCONTROL AREA............................................ 88 8.3 SES II PERFORMANCE SCHEME ..................................................................................................... 93 8.4 EN-ROUTE ANS COST-EFFECTIVENESS KPI AT STATE LEVEL ....................................................... 94 8.5 THE COMPONENTS OF EN-ROUTE ANS COSTS (EUROPEAN AND STATE LEVEL) ............................. 98 8.6 TERMINAL ANS COST-EFFECTIVENESS KPI FOR EU STATES ...................................................... 102 8.7 ANSP’S COST-EFFECTIVENESS BENCHMARKING......................................................................... 105 8.8 CONCLUSIONS............................................................................................................................. 108

PART III - OVERALL ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT .......................................................................... 110

9 ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT.......................................................................................................... 110

9.1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................... 110 9.2 CONSOLIDATED ASSESSMENT OF ANS PERFORMANCE................................................................ 110 9.3 ESTIMATED ECONOMIC ANS COSTS AT AIRPORTS....................................................................... 111 9.4 ESTIMATED ECONOMIC EN-ROUTE ANS COSTS ........................................................................... 112 9.5 EVOLUTION OF TOTAL ECONOMIC EN-ROUTE ANS COSTS.......................................................... 113 9.6 CHALLENGES AND DEVELOPMENTS AHEAD................................................................................. 115 9.7 CONCLUSIONS............................................................................................................................. 118

ANNEX I - SES II PERFORMANCE SCHEME................................................................................... 119

ANNEX II - FRAMEWORK FOR TRAFFIC ANALYSIS .................................................................. 122

ANNEX III - ACC TRAFFIC AND DELAY DATA (2006-2009) ........................................................ 123

ANNEX IV - TRAFFIC COMPLEXITY................................................................................................ 124

ANNEX V - ATFM DELAYS................................................................................................................... 126

ANNEX VI - TOP 50 MOST-CONSTRAINING POINTS ................................................................... 127

ANNEX VII - PEOPLE AFFECTED BY AIRCRAFT NOISE AT MAIN AIRPORTS.................... 128

ANNEX VIII - CHANGE IN REAL EN-ROUTE UNIT COSTS......................................................... 129

ANNEX IX - LIST OF AIRPORTS APPLYING TERMINAL CHARGES ....................................... 130

ANNEX X - ANSP PERFORMANCE SHEETS .................................................................................... 131

xiii

ANNEX XI - GLOSSARY........................................................................................................................ 133

ANNEX XII - REFERENCES ................................................................................................................. 141

xiv

L I S T O F F I G U R E S

Figure 1: Key Performance indicators in 2009.................................................................................ii Figure 2: EUROCONTROL and SES States....................................................................................2 Figure 3: PC action on PRC recommendations in PRR 2008 ..........................................................4 Figure 4: Implementation status of PC decisions on PRC recommendations ..................................4 Figure 5: Traffic levels and variations..............................................................................................5 Figure 6: Key traffic data and indices in Europe..............................................................................6 Figure 7: Key Traffic indicators and indices ....................................................................................6 Figure 8: Monthly comparison (passengers, freight)........................................................................6 Figure 9: Passenger load factors.......................................................................................................7 Figure 10: Yearly traffic variation per charging area .......................................................................7 Figure 11: Largest traffic variation per charging area in terms of movements ................................8 Figure 12: Movements at the top 20 airports....................................................................................8 Figure 13: Airports with largest variation in average daily movements ..........................................9 Figure 14: STATFOR Medium Term Forecast (dated Feb. 2010)...................................................9 Figure 15: Medium term traffic forecast ........................................................................................10 Figure 16: Medium-term forecasts with publication dates .............................................................10 Figure 17: World real GDP and RPK.............................................................................................11 Figure 18: Average fuel cost (deflated)..........................................................................................11 Figure 19: Distribution of IFR flights by type ...............................................................................12 Figure 20: Evolution of “low-cost” flight movements ...................................................................12 Figure 21: Aggregated complexity scores at ATC-Unit level ........................................................13 Figure 22: Seasonal traffic variations at ATC-Unit level...............................................................14 Figure 23: Within week variability ................................................................................................14 Figure 24: Peak day and average daily traffic ................................................................................15 Figure 25: Commercial air transport accidents in EUROCONTROL States .................................17 Figure 26: Reported High-Risk Separation Minima Infringements in ECAC Member States.......18 Figure 27: Reported High-Risk Runway Incursions in ECAC Member States..............................18 Figure 28: Reported versus ‘not investigated’ ATM safety occurrences .......................................19 Figure 29: ANSPs and ATM Regulators with maturity below target level....................................20 Figure 30: ECAC ANSP Maturity Profile......................................................................................20 Figure 31: ECAC Regulator Maturity Profile ................................................................................21 Figure 32: Scope of Safety Maturity Survey Framework ..............................................................22 Figure 33: Publication of USOAP audit results on ICAO public web site.....................................23 Figure 34: Implementation of Just Culture environment in 2009 ..................................................25 Figure 35: Public availability of information on ATM safety........................................................26 Figure 36: States with automatic reporting tools............................................................................26 Figure 37: Conceptual framework for the analysis of operational air transport performance........29 Figure 38: Punctuality of Operations .............................................................................................30 Figure 39: On time performance between 2000-2009....................................................................30 Figure 40: Punctuality at the top 20 airports in terms of movements.............................................31 Figure 41: Evolution of scheduled block times in Europe (intra-European flights).......................32 Figure 42: Block times on inbound flights to London ...................................................................33 Figure 43: Variability of flight phases on Intra European flights...................................................34 Figure 44: Drivers of departure delays between 2007 and 2009....................................................35 Figure 45: Correlation between CODA and CFMU data ...............................................................36 Figure 46: Distribution of average daily ATFM delays by cause of delay ....................................37 Figure 47: Types of reactionary delays ..........................................................................................38 Figure 48: Sensitivity of the Air Transport Network to primary delays ........................................38 Figure 49: Impact of airport operations on its own performance ...................................................39 Figure 50: ATFM over-deliveries ..................................................................................................40 Figure 51: ATFM slot adherence ...................................................................................................40 Figure 52: ATFM slot adherence at airports ..................................................................................41 Figure 53: Delay due to inappropriate ATFM regulations .............................................................41

xv

Figure 54: Summer ATFM en-route delay target ...........................................................................44 Figure 55: Matching effective capacity and air traffic demand......................................................44 Figure 56: Evolution of en-route ATFM delays (2006-2009)........................................................45 Figure 57: Most en-route ATFM delay generating ACCs..............................................................46 Figure 58: Cumulative distribution of en-route ATFM delays by sector .......................................47 Figure 59: ATFM en-route delay drivers (most delay generating ACCs)......................................47 Figure 60: Geographical distribution of most delay-generating ACCs..........................................48 Figure 61: Accuracy of capacity planning (Summer 2009) ...........................................................49 Figure 62: ATFM delays due to combined/elementary sectors......................................................49 Figure 63: ACC plans to implement new ATM systems (2010-13)...............................................50 Figure 64: Horizontal flight efficiency target.................................................................................52 Figure 65: En-route flight efficiency indicator...............................................................................53 Figure 66: Direct route extension by components..........................................................................54 Figure 67: Examples of national and local flight efficiency initiatives..........................................55 Figure 68: free route selection - Portugal .......................................................................................55 Figure 69: Additional en-route distance per FAB in 2009 .............................................................56 Figure 70: Additional en-route distance per State in 2009.............................................................57 Figure 71: Direct route extension -week/weekend .........................................................................58 Figure 72: Performance indicators on access to shared airspace....................................................58 Figure 73: Measuring “additional time” and “off-block delays" in different flight phases............63 Figure 74: Global peak service rate and declared capacity at top 20 airports ................................64 Figure 75: Global throughput over 90% of the declared capacity..................................................65 Figure 76: European average of arrival ATFM regulations (top 20 airports) ................................65 Figure 77: Arrival ATFM regulations at the top 20 airports ..........................................................66 Figure 78: Approach (ASMA) additional time (40 NM-landing) at top 20 airports ......................67 Figure 79: European Pre-departure delays (top 20 busy airports)..................................................67 Figure 80: Pre-departure delays at top 20 busy airports.................................................................68 Figure 81: Taxi-out additional time at top 20 airports ...................................................................69 Figure 82: Estimated total additional time related to airport airside operations in 2009................70 Figure 83: Airport slot utilisation/additional times ........................................................................70 Figure 84: Contribution of CO2 emissions by sector in EU27 area (2007) ....................................73 Figure 85: Aviation emissions in ETS (2009)................................................................................75 Figure 86: Fuel burn by duration of flight (2009) ..........................................................................75 Figure 87: Framework for the evaluation of industry driven fuel efficiency improvements .........76 Figure 88: Factors contributing to aviation CO2 efficiency ...........................................................77 Figure 89: Schematic evolution of CO2 emissions .........................................................................77 Figure 90: Aviation efficiency .......................................................................................................77 Figure 91: CO2 emissions from aviation ........................................................................................77 Figure 92: ANS contribution to reduce aviation related CO2 emissions ........................................78 Figure 93: Aviation emissions within European airspace in 2009 .................................................78 Figure 94: Share of CO2 emissions actionable by ANS in 2009 ....................................................79 Figure 95: ANS fuel efficiency ......................................................................................................79 Figure 96: Considerations for optimising the arrival flow .............................................................81 Figure 97: ATM concept today ......................................................................................................81 Figure 98: Integrated trajectory management.................................................................................81 Figure 99: Contribution to Local Air Quality at Manchester airport .............................................83 Figure 100: Strategic noise map for Paris Orly airport ..................................................................84 Figure 101: People affected by aircraft noise.................................................................................85 Figure 102: Breakdown of gate-to-gate ANS costs, 2008..............................................................87 Figure 103: En-route ANS cost-effectiveness KPI for EUROCONTROL Area (€2008 prices) ...88 Figure 104: Real en-route unit costs per km (KPI), total costs and traffic .....................................89 Figure 105: Comparison of real en-route unit costs (data planned in Nov ‘08 & Nov ‘09)...........89 Figure 106: Summary of main cost-containment measures implemented by States ......................90 Figure 107: ANSPs balance sheet structure, 2008 .........................................................................91 Figure 108: Liquidity ratios per ANSP, 2008 ................................................................................92

xvi

Figure 109: Trend in en-route ANS real unit costs for the five largest States (2004-2013) in €2008................................................................................................................................................95

Figure 110: Changes in planned en-route costs and traffic for the five largest States (€2008)......96 Figure 111: Changes in planned en-route costs and traffic for the five largest States versus the

remaining 25 States (€2008)...................................................................................................98 Figure 112: Breakdown of en-route ANS costs at European system level (2008).........................98 Figure 113: Changes in en-route MET costs at European level (2004-2010) in €2008.................99 Figure 114: Arrangements for provision of MET services.............................................................99 Figure 115: Share of en-route MET costs in total en-route national cost base (2008).................100 Figure 116: EUROCONTROL Agency costs relative to total European en-route ANS costs.....100 Figure 117: EUROCONTROL Agency costs per establishment & expenditure (Parts I & IX) ..101 Figure 118: EUROCONTROL costs forward-looking projections (Nov. 2008- Nov. 2009) ......101 Figure 119: Status of 2008 terminal ANS data provision ............................................................102 Figure 120: Breakdown of terminal ANS costs at European system level (2008) .......................103 Figure 121: Terminal ANS unit costs at European system level (€2008) ....................................103 Figure 122: Terminal IFR ANS costs per IFR airport movement, 2008 ......................................104 Figure 123: Breakdown of gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs (2008) ................................105 Figure 124: Changes in ATM/CNS provision costs, traffic and ATFM delays (2004-2008) ......106 Figure 125: ATM/CNS cost-effectiveness comparisons, 2004-2008 (real terms) .......................107 Figure 126: Breakdown of changes in cost-effectiveness, 2004-2008 (real terms)......................108 Figure 127: Perspectives on ANS performance ...........................................................................111 Figure 128: Estimated costs of ATFM delay ...............................................................................112 Figure 129: Estimated costs of sub-optimal horizontal flight efficiency .....................................113 Figure 130: Total economic en-route costs ..................................................................................114 Figure 131: Real unit economic en-route cost..............................................................................114 Figure 132: Evolution of en-route ATFM delays, unit costs and traffic ......................................115 Figure 133: FDPS system upgrades and planned replacements ...................................................117

Chapter 1: Introduction

PRR 2009 Chapter 1: Introduction

1

PART I- BACKGROUND 1 Introduction

1.1 Purpose of the report 1.1.1 Air Navigation Services (ANS) are essential for the safety, efficiency and sustainability

of civil and military aviation, and to meet wider economic, social and environmental policy objectives.

1.1.2 This Performance Review Report (PRR 2009) has been produced by the independent Performance Review Commission (PRC) of EUROCONTROL. The PRC and its supporting Unit the Performance Review Unit (PRU) were established in 1998 and have been conducting performance review, target-setting and cost-effectiveness benchmarking since then.

1.1.3 The purpose of this report is to provide policy makers and ANS stakeholders with objective information and independent advice concerning European ANS performance in 2009, based on research, consultation and information provided by relevant parties.

1.1.4 The draft final report was made available to stakeholders for consultation and written comment from 23 February-19 March 2010. The PRC considered every written comment received and amended the Final Report where warranted.

1.1.5 The PRC’s recommendations can be found in the Executive Summary.

1.2 Structure of the report 1.2.1 PRR 2009 is structured as follows:

Executive Summary Part I: Background Introduction (Chapter 1) Traffic demand (Chapter 2) Part II: Key Performance Areas Safety (Chapter 3) Operational Performance

Air Transport Network Performance (Chapter 4) En-route Operational Performance (Chapter 5) Operational Performance at main airports (Chapter 6) Environment (Chapter 7)

Cost-effectiveness (Chapter 8)

Part III: Economic Assessment and Outlook (Chapter 9)

1.2.2 New features of the report include:

a focus on environmental performance in Chapter 7;

consideration of terminal charges in Chapter 8;

a consolidated economic assessment of ANS performance in Chapter 9.

1.2.3 Unless otherwise indicated, PRR 2009 refers to ANS performance in the airspace controlled by the 38 Member States of EUROCONTROL in 2009 (see Figure 2), hereinafter referred to as “Europe”, and all data refer to the calendar year 2009.

1

PRR 2009 2 Chapter 1: Introduction

EUROCONTROL

ECAA

EU 27

Bilateral agreement with EU

Figure 2: EUROCONTROL and SES States

1.3 Institutional background 1.3.1 In 1998, the EUROCONTROL Organisation established performance review in order “to

introduce a strong, transparent and independent performance review and target setting system to facilitate more effective management of the European ATM system, encourage mutual accountability for system performance and provide a better basis for investment analyses…”. This was achieved through the creation of the independent PRC [ECAC Institutional Strategy for Air Traffic Management (ATM) in Europe, Ref. 1].

1.3.2 In October 2009, the Single European Sky (SES) II Regulation [Ref. 2] was adopted by the European Community and came into force on 4 December 2009. It amends the four existing SES regulations adopted in 2004 [Ref. 3, 4, 5, 6].

1.3.3 This SES II Regulation is the first pillar of a wider initiative of the European Commission called “the second package of legislation for a Single European Sky - SES II”, which was adopted by the European Commission in June 2008. This package is based on four “pillars”:

A Performance pillar (the SES II Regulation adopted in October 2009), the main features of which are:

a Performance Scheme (Art. 11 FR, see text in Annex I), including European Union-wide performance targets adopted under European Commission authority and national/FAB performance plans (targets + incentives) adopted under States’ responsibility, and consistent with European targets, in the fields of Safety, Capacity, Cost efficiency and the Environment. The first reference period for which EU and national/FAB targets will be set is 2012-2014.

Extension of Functional Airspace Blocks (FAB) to the full ANS, not only airspace;

Establishment of a Network Management and Design (NMD) function.

1


A Safety pillar (the EASA Regulation adopted in October 2009) [Ref. 7] - extending the competence of the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) to aerodromes, air traffic management and air navigation services.

A Technical innovation pillar (the ATM Master plan was endorsed in March 2009) - through the SESAR (Single European Sky ATM Research) programme.

An Airports pillar - an observatory of airport capacity was created in November 2008. The Observatory’s task is to advise the Commission on the development of measures to improve the capacity of the European airport network.

1.3.4 More details on SES II are available from the European Commission’s website [Ref. 8].

PERFORMANCE REVIEW IN A PAN-EUROPEAN CONTEXT

1.3.5 Within the EUROCONTROL Organisation, the PRC has been discharging performance review duties as defined in its Terms of Reference [Ref. 9] since 1998.

1.3.6 In addition, the PRC has undertaken work for the European Commission with the prior authorisation of the EUROCONTROL Organisation. This work has included:

“Evaluation of the Impact of the Single European Sky Initiative on ATM Performance” (December 2006) [Ref. 10];

“Evaluation of Functional Airspace Block (FAB) initiatives and their contribution to performance improvement” (October 2008) [Ref. 11];

“Review of local and regional Performance Planning, consultation and management processes” (December 2009) [Ref. 12].

1.3.7 All of this work has been funded by the European Commission. These reports can be consulted on the PRC website.

1.3.8 The PRC has developed a Discussion Paper [Ref. 13] to provide input to the draft Commission Regulation laying down a performance scheme for air navigation services and network functions. The Discussion Paper was developed in close consultation with stakeholders. It is a "living" document to be used by interested parties when implementing the performance scheme in their respective areas. The Discussion Paper can be consulted on the PRC website [Ref. 14].

1.4 Implementation status of PC decisions on PRC recommendations 1.4.1 Article 10.7 of the PRC’s Terms of Reference states that, “the PRC shall track the follow-

up of the implementation of its recommendations, and report the results systematically to the Provisional Council”.

1.4.2 The Provisional Council (PC 31, May 2009) took the following decisions on PRC recommendations arising out of PRR 2008. Deletions made by PC 31 are shown in strikethrough. Additions made by PC 31 are shown in bold.

The Provisional Council (PC 31, May 2009):

Safety

(a) requested States to provide greater further improve the transparency of ANS safety data, and particularly the public availability of States’ ESIMS and USOAP audit reports concerning ANS safety, including Corrective Action Plans;

(b) requested the Director General to present a plan to ensure the continuity of safety oversight, taking due account of any future EASA responsibilities;

(c) is invited to require encouraged the use by States/ANSPs to use of automated detection and reporting tools to complement manual reporting of incidents as deemed appropriate.

Flight efficiency-Environment

1


(d) confirmed the already agreed target for flight efficiency of an annual reduction of the average route extension per flight of 2 Km, and related environmental impact (May 2007);

(e) requested that the CFMU and airspace users co-operate to further increase the use of shorter alternative routes at the flight planning stage, including conditional routes;

(f) requested further development of route structures coordinated by EUROCONTROL, and that conditional routes are open as often as possible, particularly at week-ends

Cost effectiveness

(g) is invited to agree urged States/ANSPs to do their utmost to try to ensure that there should would be no mid-term upward revision by States of the 2009 unit rates and that States/ANSPs implement necessary measures to take action to deal with any revenue shortfall in 2009;

CAPACITY (h) urged States and Air Navigation Service Providers to do their utmost not to jeopardise

future capacity provision during the current economic situation.

NETWORK MANAGEMENT (i) requested the Director General to propose to commence work to define the role of the

envisaged network management function, and to propose relevant performance indicators; for, the network management function;

(j) requested the States to promote the use of airport collaborative decision-making.

Figure 3: PC action on PRC recommendations in PRR 2008

1.4.3 In the past five years, the PRC has made 27 recommendations requiring action to the Provisional Council. The implementation status of the associated PC decision is shown in the table below:

KPA/Decision Implemented Partially

implemented Not

implemented

No action needed, or

recent decision Total

Safety 1 10 11 Environment/flight efficiency 4 1 1 6 Capacity 2 4 1 7 Cost-efficiency 2 1 3

Total 7 17 3 27

Figure 4: Implementation status of PC decisions on PRC recommendations

1.4.4 Details of these recommendations can be found in previous performance review reports. A more detailed evaluation of the status of these recommendations is on the PRC website: http://www.eurocontrol.int/prc.

Chapter 2: Traffic

PRR 2009 5 Chapter 2: Traffic

2 Traffic

KEY MESSAGES OF THIS CHAPTER

There was an unprecedented downturn in air traffic in 2009 (-6.6%) in the wake of the world economic and financial crises. However, there was positive traffic growth in South East Europe

The economic crisis leads to more uncertainty and as a consequence there is a wide margin in traffic forecasts.

Traffic levels in 2009 were very close to 2006 levels. Three to four years of traffic growth were cancelled-out.

2.1 Introduction 2.1.1 This chapter provides statistics and forecasts on IFR General Air Traffic (GAT) in

Europe, with a specific focus on the unprecedented traffic downturn in 2009.

2.2 Air Traffic statistics 2.2.1 Traffic decreased to 9.4 million flights in 2009 (-6.61%) in the ESRA 2008 area2. This

drop by far exceeds that following the events of 11 September 2001 as shown on left side of Figure 5. This represents a major crisis for the industry.

million IFR flights per year0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

199

0

199

2

199

4

199

6

199

8

200

0

200

2

200

4

200

6

200

8

201

0

201

2

201

4

201

6

FEB 2010 Medium Forecast


( before 1997, estimation based on Euro 88 traffic variation)

TRAFFIC 9.4 M (-6.6%)

% annual growth-10%

-5%

0%

5%

10%


FEB 2010 FORECAST

thousands daily flights18

20

22

24

26

28

30

32

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

Ma

y

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep Oct

No

v

De

c

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

% 2009/2008 growth

-20%

-10%

0%

10%

data source : EUROCONTROL/STATFOR (ESRA2008)

Figure 5: Traffic levels and variations

2.2.2 As can be seen in Figure 5, traffic levels in 2009 were very close to 2006 levels. This has two implications for this report:

Three to four years of traffic growth were cancelled-out at once, which has a positive impact for delays (-36% of total ATFM3 delays compared to 2008).

Year 2006 constitutes an interesting reference to analyse ANS performance in 2009 as the monthly traffic was quite similar to 2006 until August and then followed more the 2005 trend.

2.2.3 Key traffic data and indices are given in Figure 6. The methodological framework showing the different indicators and their relationships can be found in Annex II. More detailed traffic data can be found in Annex III.

1 Minus 6.4% taking into account the leap year. 2 ESRA 2008 area (see Glossary). 3 En-route and airport ATFM delays.

2

PRR 2009 Chapter 2: Traffic

6

Year 2009 Actual Variation

2009/2008 Index

100 in 2003 IFR flights in Europe4 9.4 M -6.6% 112 IFR flight-hours in Europe4 13.5 M -6.1% 118 Distance charged in RCS5 (Km) 8 296 -6.3% 120 Data source: EUROCONTROL/STATFOR/CRCO/CFMU

Figure 6: Key traffic data and indices in Europe

2.2.4 As can be seen in Figure 7, there was a major drop of traffic in 2009. In Europe, MTOW continued to grow slowly as well as the average flight length (see Figure 64 on page 52).

95

100

105

110

115

120

125

130

135

140

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Flights

Distance Charged

Passengers

MTOW

Flight hours

index 100 in 2003

data source : passengers: ACI - flights, flight hours : STATFOR (ESRA2008) , distance charged, M TOW: CRCO

Figure 7: Key Traffic indicators and indices

2.2.5 Air freight has been more heavily affected than passenger traffic in Europe. The end of the year showed recovery for freight and some recovery for passenger traffic, even if it started from a deeply negative base at the end of 2008. Freight recovery is generally seen as an advance indicator of economic recovery.

-30%

-20%

-10%

0%

10%

20%

30%

May08

Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan09

Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

% C

han

ge

Total freight in metric tonnes (Europe)

Total n° of passengers (Europe)

data source: ACI

Figure 8: Monthly comparison (passengers, freight)

4 ESRA 2008 area (see Glossary). 5 States in “EUROCONTROL Route Charges System” in 2009 excluding Santa Maria (see Glossary).

2


7

2.2.6 In the first half of 2009, load factors decreased but, by cutting capacity, airlines managed to restore high load factors during the second half of 2009, close to the record breaking load factors of 2007.

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Pa

ss

en

ge

r L

oa

d F

ac

tor

data source: AEA (Total Scheduled)

Figure 9: Passenger load factors

2.3 Traffic Growth 2.3.1 Traffic growth was again quite contrasted across States in 2009, ranging from -13% to

9%, as can be seen in Figure 10. The vast majority of the States experienced large decline. Among the busiest States, UK and Spain recorded around 10% decrease while Turkey saw a moderate increase of +4%.

4%

-7%

-7%

-10%

-11%

-8%

-7%

-4%

-8%

-5%

-2%

-9%

0%3%

-2%-8%

-5%

3%

-12%

-1%

-7%

-8%

0%

-12%

-2%7%

-7%

9%

-12%

-9%

0%

-8%

-7%

-8%

-4%

3%

-2%

1%

Annual growth in IFR Movements 2009

Below 0%

0% to 3%

3.% to 6%

6% to 9%

9% to 12%

Above 12%

-13%

Canarias-3%

Azores data source : EUROCONTROL/STATFOR Figure 10: Yearly traffic variation per charging area

2.3.2 Figure 11 shows the charging areas with the highest variations in terms of absolute movements (overflights, international and domestic traffic). Year on year, the United Kingdom, Germany and France showed the highest drop in actual movements. Of the

Annual growth in IFR Movements 2008

Below 0%

0% to 3%

3.% to 6%

6% to 9%

9% to 12%

Above 12%

CanariasAzores data source : EUROCONTROL/STATFOR

2


8

seven countries with a positive growth in terms of absolute movements, only growth in Turkey is not due totally to overflights.

-7%-11%

4%3% 9% 3%

7% 1% 0%

-9%

-7% -7%

-10%

-9% -8% -5% -8%

-700

-600

-500

-400

-300

-200

-100

0

100

200

Tu

rke

y

Se

rbia

an

d M

on

ten

eg

ro

Alb

an

ia

Bo

snia

-He

rze

go

vin

a

Mo

ldo

va

Ma

lta

Cro

atia

UK

Ge

rma

ny

Fra

nce

Sp

ain

Ne

the

rla

nd

s

Au

stri

a

Italy

Be

lgiu

m/L

ux.

Sw

ed

en

Sw

itze

rla

nd

Va

ria

tio

n in

mo

ve

me

nts

20

09

vs

20

08

(p

er

da

y)

-500%

-400%

-300%

-200%

-100%

0%

100%

OverflightInternational

Internal% Movement Growth

data source : EUROCONTROL/STATFOR

TOP INCREASE TOP DECREASE

Figure 11: Largest traffic variation per charging area in terms of movements

2.3.3 Figure 12 shows the top 20 airports in term of movements (departures plus arrivals). The figure shows that 18 out of the top 20 airports have lost traffic. Traffic only increased in Athens and Istanbul (+7% and +4% respectively). The average variation of traffic at the top 20 airports is -7% which is in line with the total traffic decrease.

-6%

-2% -4% -7%-9% -8%

-6% -13%

4% -10%-5% -10% -11%

-4% -8% -6% 7% -13% -14%

-4%

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

Par

is/C

harle

s-D

e-G

aulle

Lond

on/H

eath

row

Fra

nkfu

rt

Mad

rid/B

araj

as

Am

ster

dam

Mun

ich

Rom

e/F

ium

icin

o

Bar

celo

na

Ista

nbul

/Ata

turk

Vie

nna

Lond

on/G

atw

ick

Zur

ich

Cop

enha

gen/

Kas

trup

Bru

ssel

s

Par

is/O

rly

Osl

o/G

arde

rmoe

n

Dus

seld

orf

Ath

ens

Sto

ckho

lm/A

rland

a

Mila

n/M

alpe

nsa

Air

po

rt m

ove

men

ts p

er d

ay 2009 2008

data source : EUROCONTROL/CFM U

Figure 12: Movements at the top 20 airports

2.3.4 Figure 13 shows airports with largest absolute variations in movements. For the top 10 airports showing an increase in traffic movements, many of these airports are served by “low cost” carriers. 2009 shows significant decreases in traffic at main airports (see also Figure 24 - Peak day and average daily traffic).

2


9

38%7%

4%34% 54%

11% 9% 39% 49% 14%

-13%

-9%-8% -7% -6% -16%-15% -13%-14% -10%

-140

-120

-100

-80

-60

-40

-20

0

20

40

60

Sab

iha

Gok

cen

(LT

)

Ath

ens

(LG

)

Ista

nbul

Ata

turk

(LT

)

Cha

rlero

i (E

B)

Nie

derr

hein

(E

D)

Rig

a (E

V)

Ber

lin S

choe

nefe

ld (

ED

)

Reu

s (L

E)

Zad

ar (

LD)

Buc

ures

ti B

anea

sa (

LR)

Bar

celo

na (

BC

N)

Am

ster

dam

(A

MS

)

Mun

ich

(MU

C)

Mad

rid (

MA

D)

Par

is (

CD

G)

Dub

lin (

DU

B)

Man

ches

ter

(MA

N)

Sto

ckho

lm (

AR

N)

Mila

n/M

alpe

nsa

(MX

P)

Vie

nna

(VIE

)

Va

ria

tio

n in

air

po

rt m

ov

em

en

ts 2

00

9 v

s 2

00

8 (

pe

r d

ay

)

-500%

-400%

-300%

-200%

-100%

0%

100%

Airport Movements

% Movement Growthdata source : EUROCONTROL/CFM U

TOP 10 INCREASE TOP 10 DECREASE

Figure 13: Airports with largest variation in average daily movements

2.4 Traffic forecasts 2.4.1 Traffic is in line with the short term forecast published in Feb 2009 (-5%, with wide

uncertainty -1.5% to -8% as a consequence of the global financial crisis and economic downturn).

2.4.2 In the medium term, forecast traffic growth is quite contrasted across Europe, as illustrated in Figure 14, with highest relative growth expected in Eastern Europe.

Figure 14: STATFOR Medium Term Forecast (dated Feb. 2010)

2


10

2.4.3 EUROCONTROL’s updated medium term traffic forecast (dated Feb.2010) is shown in Figure 15.

-5

0

5

10

15

1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015-10%

-5%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

AnnualGrowth

Long-Term Average Growth

Actual Traffic

Long-Term Trend

Forecast Traffic

Fli

gh

ts i

n E

uro

pe

(M

illi

on

)

IFR traffic in Europe1960-2009 historical figures

2010-2016 forecast

source : EUROCONTROL/STATFOR

Figure 15: Medium term traffic forecast

2.5 Traffic predictability and ANS flexibility TRAFFIC FORECAST ACCURACY

2.5.1 Figure 16 shows the successive medium term forecasts and actual traffic at European level. While forecasts are quite good in stable situations, they are necessarily relatively far off in case of unforeseen changes, such as the 2001 events and the economic crisis in 2008. In February 2006, the forecast for 2009 was almost 10% above the actual traffic.

8.0

9.0

10.0

11.0

12.0

13.0

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

IFR

Mov

emen

ts in

Eur

opea

n S

tatis

tic R

efer

ence

Are

a (

Mill

ions

)

Source :EUROCONTROL/ STATFOR

Forecast published in :

Feb 2006(Baseline)

Feb 2004(Baseline)

Feb 2010(Baseline)

Feb 2010 (Low)

Feb 2010 (High)

Feb 2009(Baseline)

Actual Traffic

Figure 16: Medium-term forecasts with publication dates

2.5.2 A degree of unpredictability of traffic demand in time and space is inevitable. This is not a failure of forecasting, rather a background against which ANS planning must operate, and respond through flexibility.

2


11

FACTORS INFLUENCING TRAFFIC GROWTH

2.5.3 Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is understood to be a main driver of aviation growth. Figure 17 illustrates a correlation between passenger kilometres flown and real GDP growth rates

2.5.4 In 2009, the GDP variation in Europe was -4%. The yellow bars correspond to crisis periods.

-8

-6

-4

-2

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

1971

1973

1975

1977

1979

1981

1983

1985

1987

1989

1991

1993

1995

1997

1999

2001

2003

2005

2007

2009

2011

2013

2015

% c

ha

ng

e o

ver

yea

r (R

PK

s)

-5

-3

-1

1

3

5

7

9

% c

ha

ng

e o

ver

yea

r (G

DP

)

Global RPKs (left scale)

World GDP (right scale)

source : IATA

1980-82 1991-93 2001-03 2008-10

Growth in global Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and Revenue Passenger Kilometres ( RPK)

Figure 17: World real GDP and RPK

2.5.5 Compared to GDP, fuel price would appear to have had a moderate impact on traffic demand: there was strong traffic growth in 2007, when fuel prices had more than doubled. Conversely, there was a strong traffic downturn in 2009, in spite of relatively low average fuel prices compared to recent years. The average jet fuel price per barrel (Rotterdam spot price) was $90 (€65) in 2007, $127 (€85) in 2008 and $71 (€51) in 2009.

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

1 J

an

198

7

1 J

an

198

8

1 J

an

198

9

1 J

an

199

0

1 J

an

199

1

1 J

an

199

2

1 J

an

199

3

1 J

an

199

4

1 J

an

199

5

1 J

an

199

6

1 J

an

199

7

1 J

an

199

8

1 J

an

199

9

1 J

an

200

0

1 J

an

200

1

1 J

an

200

2

1 J

an

200

3

1 J

an

200

4

1 J

an

200

5

1 J

an

200

6

1 J

an

200

7

1 J

an

200

8

1 J

an

200

9

20

09

US

do

llar

per

ba

rre

l

Price in € 2009 per barrel

data source : US Department of Energy (Rotterdam Jet Fuel Spot Price)

Figure 18: Average fuel cost (deflated)

2


12

2.6 Traffic Composition 2.6.1 Figure 19 shows the user mix in controlled General Air Traffic (GAT) in 2008 and 2009

using the STATFOR classification. Cargo flights and Charter decreased by 13% and traditional scheduled flights by 7%. “Low cost” flights decreased by only 2% and now account for 20.8% of the traffic share (19.9% in 2008) as shown in Figure 20.

3.4%

58.5%

1.7%

2.6%

6.4%

7.5%

19.9%

3.2%

1.8%

58.5%

2.8%

5.9%

6.9%

20.8%

Low-Cost

Business Aviation

Charter

Cargo

Military

Other

Traditional Scheduled

2009

2008

All IFR Flights


0 %

2 %

4 %

6 %

8 %

10 %

12 %

14 %

16 %

18 %

20 %

22 %

24 %

01

/91

01

/92

01

/93

01

/94

01

/95

01

/96

01

/97

01

/98

01

/99

01

/00

01

/01

01

/02

01

/03

01

/04

01

/05

01

/06

01

/07

01

/08

01

/09

Low

-co

st s

har

e o

f IF

R m

ove

me

nts

in E

uro

pe

Earlier years are estimated from data for a smaller geographical region.

Low-cost market share (left-hand scale)

Low-cost traffic (right-hand scale)

Figure 19: Distribution of IFR flights by type6 Figure 20: Evolution of “low-cost” flight movements

2.6.2 After 3 years of strong growth (up to +10% in 2007), Business Aviation traffic showed a gradual decline in 2008 and the highest decrease of all market segments in 2009 (-14%). As a consequence, the business aviation market share fell from 7.5% in 2008 to 6.9% in 2009.

2.7 Complexity and Traffic Variability 2.7.1 Traffic characteristics vary considerably across Europe. Traffic complexity and variability

are two factors that can influence service provision costs and quality of service.

COMPLEXITY

2.7.2 Traffic complexity is generally regarded as a factor to be considered when analysing ATM performance. In 2006, the PRC produced a specific report on air traffic complexity indicators, prepared in close collaboration with ANSPs [Ref. 15].

2.7.3 An aggregated complexity has been defined, which is the product of adjusted density and structural complexity.

Adjusted Density measures the volume of traffic in a given volume of airspace taking into account the concentration of the traffic in space and in time.

Structural Complexity reflects the structure of traffic flows. It is defined as the sum of interactions between flights: horizontal interactions (different headings), vertical interactions (climb/descend) and interactions due to different speeds.

6 See STATFOR classification of GAT in glossary. Note that the “Military IFR” segment does not include a substantial portion of military traffic under military control. Similarly, “Other” does not include General Aviation flying purely under Visual Flight Rules (VFR).

2


13

CAN

LIS

ANK

SCO

SHA

ROM

MAD

STO

BRE

BOD

WARLON

ISTBAR

TAM

BUC

MAA

SIM

ATH+MAK

KIE

MAR

MAL

STA

MAL

NIC

BOR

RHE

SEV

BRI

KHA

ROV

COP

SOF

LVO

BEOZAG

OSL

RIG

VIL

TAL

BUDWIE

PRAODEREI

PAD

MUN

TIR

PAR

CHIBRAT

ZURGEN

SKO

LJU YER

BREM

LAN

AMS

BRU

MANDUB

LON TC

PAL

Lower Airspace

Lower Airspace

Traffic complexity score 2009< 2> 2> 4> 6> 8


Figure 21: Aggregated complexity scores at ATC-Unit level

2.7.4 Figure 21 shows the aggregated complexity scores for the different area control centres (ACCs) for the year 2009. London TC (40) has the highest score, followed by Langen ACC (14), Brussels ACC (13) and Manchester ACC (12). In other words, for each hour flown within the respective airspace, there were on average in Langen 14 minutes of potential interactions with other aircraft. The average European aggregated complexity score is close to 6 minutes of interaction per flight-hour.

2.7.5 Updated complexity indicators for ANSPs and some more information on complexity indicators can be found in Annex IV.

TRAFFIC DEMAND VARIABILITY

2.7.6 Variability in traffic demand makes it more difficult to make best use of resources while providing the required capacity. A distinction is made between seasonal, within-week and hourly variability. Figure 22 presents the seasonal variability indicator, which is computed as the ratio between the peak weekly traffic demand and the average weekly traffic demand over the year.

2.7.7 Higher variability is observed in South-East Europe, especially in Greek airspace where the relatively low number of flights in winter contrasts sharply with high demand in summer.

2


14

CAN

LIS

ANK

SCO

SHA

ROM

MAD

STO

BRE

BOD

WARLON

ISTBAR

TAM

BUC

MAA

SIM

KIE

ATH+MAK

MAR

MAL

STA

MAL

NIC

BOR

RHE

SEV

BRI

KHA

ROV

COP

SOF

LVO

BEOZAG

OSL

RIG

VIL

TAL

BUDWIE

PRAODEREI

PAD

MUN

TIR

PAR

CHIBRAT

ZURYERGEN

SKO

LJU

LAN

BREM

AMS

BRU

MANDUB

LON TC

PAL

Lower Airspace

Lower Airspace

Traffic variability 2009< 1.15> 1.15> 1.25> 1.35> 1.45

Figure 22: Seasonal traffic variations at ATC-Unit level

EVOLUTION OF TRAFFIC PATTERN

2.7.8 The evolution of traffic at European level over the last ten years shows higher traffic growth during summer and during weekends.

2.7.9 Figure 23 shows that, over the years, the difference between week and weekend traffic has decreased. While in 1997 the average traffic level was by 29% higher on weekdays than on weekends the ratio was only 19% in 2009.

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

Week/Weekend traffic ratio

data source: EUROCOONTROL/CFM U0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

MON TUE WED THU FRI SAT SUN

1997 2009

Distribution of traffic per day

Figure 23: Within week variability

2


15

PEAK TRAFFIC

2.7.10 Both the peak and average European daily traffic decreased in 2009, as shown in Figure 24. There were 31 040 flights on 26 June 2009, compared with the record of 34 105 flights on 27 June 2008 (-9%).

20 000

25 000

30 000

35 000

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

Peak Day Avg Daily Traff ic

Daily number of flights

data source: EUROCONTROL/CFM U

Figure 24: Peak day and average daily traffic

2.8 Conclusions 2.8.1 Due to the economic crisis, the number of controlled flights in Europe dropped to

9.4 million in 2009, an unprecedented decrease of -6.6% compared to 2008, which reduced traffic to 2005-2006 levels.

2.8.2 Average daily traffic in Europe was around 25,800 flights a day, compared to 27,500 in 2008. However, a small number of States, notably in the South-Eastern part of Europe, recorded positive growth of up to +9%.

2.8.3 All market segments shrank, in particular Business Aviation (-14%), Cargo and charter flights (-13%) and Scheduled flights (-7%). “Low cost” flights decreased by -2%.

2.8.4 For 2010, EUROCONTROL forecasts that the number of flights in Europe will grow by +0.8%, compared to a long-term average of +2.8% annual growth, reflecting continued uncertain economic growth.

Chapter 3: Safety

PRR 2009 16 Chapter 3: Safety

PART II - KEY PERFORMANCE AREAS 3 Safety


The number of reported high-risk Separation Minima Infringements decreased by 30% in 2008 and the number of reported high-risk runway incursions decreased by 5%, but Severity A runway incursions have increased by 2 (from 12 to 14).

Although there is a continuing increase in the reporting of incidents in many States, it remains of concern that the number of reporting States remains relatively low (29) and that there has been no progress in the remaining 9 States in the last 5 years;

Amongst EUROCONTROL Member States the safety maturity target of 70% was not reached by 11 Regulators and 7 ANSPs. However, between 2002 and 2009 the average ANSP maturity has increased by 27% to 82% and the average ATM Regulator maturity - by 23% to 76% (+ text of 3.4.8).

A Just Culture environment exists in a minority of EUROCONTROL Member States. This does not facilitate the deployment of a robust safety occurrence reporting system and represents a major obstacle to EUROCONTROL-wide safety performance monitoring.

To improve the consistency of safety data there is an urgent need to deploy automatic safety data acquisition tools across European ATM.

The SES II Performance scheme, administered by the PRB, must cooperate with ICAO CMA and EASA in a well defined organisational structure with clear accountabilities to enhance consistent safety levels in the 27 EU Member States, wider Europe and the world.

The SES Performance scheme, with its target-setting process harmonised at European level, has the potential to improve European-wide safety, with resulting benefits to the citizens of Europe.

3.1 Introduction 3.1.1 This chapter reviews the safety performance of EUROCONTROL Member States

measured in 2009. However, bearing in mind that the safety occurrence reports for 2008 were compiled and sent to EUROCONTROL in 2009, the corresponding analysis and key safety performance indicators still refer to 2008.

3.1.2 As in the previous reporting periods, the safety performance of EUROCONTROL Member States was assessed using reactive and proactive safety data.

3.1.3 The safety data used to measure these indicators were provided by:

the Safety Regulation Unit (SRU)

the EUROCONTROL Agency Safety Team

the ICAO secure web site dedicated for safety oversight audit reports

other data sources such as Internet and bilateral correspondence with concerned parties

Reactive safety data

Reactive safety data measure events that have happened (e.g. safety occurrences). The ones used in safety performance review are typically incidents (separation minima infringements, runway incursions, etc.) and they show the status of achieved safety in past years. Trend analyses may reveal improvements achieved through the implementation of risk mitigation measures and resolution of safety concerns.

Proactive safety data

Proactive safety data measure the capability of regulators to ensure safety through regulating and supervising service providers. It also measures the capability of service providers to manage safety and provide efficient services.

PRR 2009 Chapter 3: Safety

17

3.1.4 In addition to the safety performance review based on reactive and proactive safety data, this chapter addresses key regulatory changes that occurred in 2009 in the 27 EU Member States, which may impact on ECAA7 States at a later stage. These changes will also have an important impact on safety performance to be measured in the next performance review periods.

3.2 Key safety indicators ATM-RELATED ACCIDENTS

3.2.1 Lessons drawn from ATM-related investigations of accident and incident are useful to improve safety, but cannot provide a clear indication of safety trends due to their limited number in any given performance review period. With the progressive implementation of ESARR2 in a number of EUROCONTROL Member States, significant efforts have been made to develop a consistent and robust incident reporting system. However, this is still constrained by the different cultural, legal or institutional environment in some States, and more progress is needed to achieve a reliable safety occurrence database that would provide a clear picture of the current level of safety throughout the ECAC area.

1 1 12

1 1

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

To

tal

nu

mb

er o

f ac

ccid

ents

Direct ATM

Accidents

Trend

Data source: Flight Safety Foundation - Aviation Safety Net

Figure 25: Commercial air transport accidents in EUROCONTROL States

ATM-RELATED INCIDENTS

3.2.2 The number of reported high-risk (Severity A and Severity B) Separation Minima Infringements (SMIs) are shown in Figure 26 shows a 30% decrease in 2008 (from 365 to 256), although the total number of reported SMIs has increased by 1% (from 1567 to 1588). As a result, the percentage of high risk occurrences decreased from 23% to 16% of the total number of occurrences reported.

3.2.3 However, this proportion may be influenced by the final classification of SMIs still under investigation (196 in 2008).

7 European Common Aviation Area


18

91 76 67 80 73 70 50

234

152 164

243 250295

206

16%

23%25%

19%26%

42% 23%

0

100

200

300

400

Cla

ssif

ied

eve

nts Severity B

Severity A

% : Proportion ofSeverity A+B

N° of ECAC states reporting 27 29 26 25 28 28 29

Total n° of reported SMI 780 889 1 226 1 281 1 398 1 567 1 588

N° of SMI still under investigation 18 7 205 99 112 119 196

Severity B 234 152 164 243 250 295 206

Severity A 91 76 67 80 73 70 50

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008P

data source : EUROCONTROL SRU

Separation Minima Infringment

Figure 26: Reported High-Risk Separation Minima Infringements in ECAC Member States

3.2.4 The number of reported high-risk (Severity A and Severity B) runway incursions (RIs) are depicted in Figure 27 shows a decrease of 5% (from 56 to 53), although the total number of reported runway incursions has increased by 3% (from 885 to 908). So the percentage of high risk occurrences has remained stable, although the Severity A runway incursions have increased by 2 (from 12 to 14).

3.2.5 The RI investigation process shows an improvement, as the number of RIs still under investigation has dropped by 43 % (from 79 to 45).

925

16 9 13 12 1410

38

32 52 5144 39

6%6%10%

9%

16%

9%

9%

0

20

40

60

80

Cla

ssif

ied

eve

nts Severity B

Severity A

% : Proportion ofSeverity A+B

N° of ECAC states reporting 27 29 26 25 28 28 29

Total n° reported 222 387 564 629 680 885 908

N° still under investigation 2 5 133 146 50 79 45

Severity B 10 38 32 52 51 44 39

Severity A 9 25 16 9 13 12 14

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008P

data source : EUROCONTROL SRU

Runway Incursion

Figure 27: Reported High-Risk Runway Incursions in ECAC Member States

3.2.6 The total number of reported safety occurrences are shown on Figure 28, has increased, showing a continuous trend for the past 6 years, although the number of safety occurrences still under investigation (9%) remains an area of concern.


19

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008P

Nu

mb

er

of

inc

ide

nts

re

po

rte

d (

'00

0)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Mill

ion

Flig

ht

Ho

urs

Traffic

data source: EUROCONTROL SRU

incidents still under investigation

Figure 28: Reported versus ‘not investigated’ ATM safety occurrences

3.2.7 The number of States reporting safety incidents has not shown improvement over the last 5 years. Out of the 43 ECAC States, 14 did not report in 2008, 9 of them are EUROCONTROL Member States (Armenia, Bulgaria, Croatia, Luxemburg, Malta, Monaco, Slovenia, Turkey and Ukraine) Furthermore out of the 29 States which reported, 5 of them reported less than 5 incidents in 2008.

3.3 Safety Maturity Surveys 3.3.1 In 2002 the EUROCONTROL Agency started conducting surveys of ECAC States’ ATM

Safety Regulators and ANSPs to identify how well ATM safety requirements were being met. The participation in the surveys was voluntary and based on questionnaires developed by the Agency. The answers to the questionnaires were used to score the different organisations according to the Safety Maturity Survey Framework methodology approved by the EUROCONTROL Provisional Council.

3.3.2 In 2003 the EUROCONTROL Provisional Council set an objective for each Member State to reach, by 2008, a maturity score of at least 70%. Since then the safety maturity surveys have been carried out six times and the results were published in the annual ATM Safety Maturity Survey reports. Due to confidentiality restrictions only de-identified maturity scores have been published in Performance Review Reports.

3.3.3 Despite the voluntary character of the surveys, in 2009, 42 ANSPs and 40 ATM Safety Regulators from 46 States have returned answers to the corresponding questionnaires. However, the number of interviews conducted after the collection of the answers and aimed at confirming the quality of the surveys, was less than in 2008 with 34 ANSPs interviewed and 31 ATM Safety Regulators in total.

3.3.4 Figure 29 shows that in 2009 11 ATM Regulators and 7 ANSPs have not yet met the agreed safety maturity level of 70%. Clearly, significant effort remains to be made in these Member States to meet safety maturity targets.


20

19

7

24

18

1111

30

22

9

28

33

13

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

ANSPs

REGs

Target

Figure 29: ANSPs and ATM Regulators with maturity below target level

ANSP RESULTS

3.3.5 In 2009 ANSPs have reported steady progress; There are 19 ANSPs who have shown improvements overall, some of these significantly high with one of them showing an improvement of 20% and seven being over 5%. The overall average maturity for ANSPs is now 82%, an increase of 27% since 2002.

Figure 30: ECAC ANSP Maturity Profile

REGULATOR RESULTS

3.3.6 The Regulatory picture is more positive than last year, in that there have been no decreases in maturity since 2008. Three ATM Regulators have reported an improvement of 11%. This significant improvement was driven by the implementation of international safety requirements (ICAO, EUROCONTROL and EC) in their National Regulations. There are still 11 ATM Safety Regulators showing below the 70% target. However, 3 are only marginally below the 70% level. Of the 9 remaining ATM Safety Regulators, 3 have recently joined the surveys and were unlikely to attain the 70% level at this stage, and the remaining 6 are above 50% but still well below the 70% target. The overall average maturity score for ATM Safety Regulators is now 76%, an increase of 23% since 2002.

ANSPs' Maturity scores range

77

67

58

4547

36

2624

1110

31

10095 94

98 100 100 94

86 8689 91

0

20

40

60

80

100

2002 2004 2006 2007 2008 2009

Min-Max limitsInterquartile range

7370


21

Figure 31: ECAC Regulator Maturity Profile

3.3.7 The Regulatory average has improved over the years of the survey but still lags behind the ANSP average. Significant improvements seem to have arisen from the rationalisation of the standards. Over the years, a lack of financial and human resources has been a recurring theme for ATM Safety Regulators.

3.4 New safety indicators proposed by SAFREP 3.4.1 The SAFREP Task Force was created by the Director General of EUROCONTROL in the

aftermath of the Linate and Überlingen accidents, dealing, inter alia, with safety reporting and data collection. After having delivered its report in 2005, the Task Force was put in abeyance, pending a need for other tasks. The SAFREP Task Force was reactivated at the end of 2006 to develop key performance indicators in the area of Safety, following a recommendation of the PRC.

3.4.2 SAFREP was given the task to develop this framework and report back to the Provisional Council of EUROCONTROL within three years (i.e. by end-2009). Practically all major ANSPs, a number of Regulators, the EC, IATA, IFATCA and other representative organisations were involved in the task force.

3.4.3 As planned, at end-2009 the SAFREP Task Force presented a framework for the measurement of safety performance, which was developed, for the relevant parts, in coordination with CANSO and ICAO; it enjoys a wide acceptance from all parties and has been discussed and in part adopted by the FAA.

3.4.4 At the end of three years of work, SAFREP delivered:

Two main ‘lagging’ (reactive) indicators based on ATM-related incident reports: number of serious Separation Minima Infringements and Runway Incursions (severity8 A and B), as well as the number of ATM-induced accidents per annum;

A methodology and tool to classify the severity of incidents based on objective data, together with a severity/risk of recurrence matrix. These were also adopted by the FAA;

A composite safety performance indicator: the Aerospace Performance Factor (APF), still under test in Europe to ensure harmonization across the ECAC area;

8 As assessed in accordance with EUROCONTROL ESARR 2 - EAM 2/GUI 1

Regulators' Maturity scores range

6967

43

55 55

63

3533

17 16 17

31

100100100989792 8887

847978

65

0

20

40

60

80

100

2002 2004 2006 2007 2008 2009

Min-Max limitsInterquartile range


22

A revised Safety Maturity Survey Framework (a ‘leading’ safety indicator) for both Regulators and ANSPs (the latter in cooperation with CANSO).

3.4.5 In order to keep a wider scope, both the current and the revised Safety Maturity Survey Frameworks are conceived to measure the level of maturity perceived by Regulators and ANSPs under national legislative and regulatory system built on existing ESARR requirements.

3.4.6 The new SES II regulatory requirements aiming at improving safety maturity at European Union level are not yet included in the revised safety maturity questionnaire.

Safety requirements applicable to all ICAO Contracting States

27 EU Member States

Additional SES II requirements not explicitly included in the questionnaires

ECAC+Member States


27 EU Member States


ECAC+Member States


27 EU Member States


ECAC+Member States

Figure 32: Scope of Safety Maturity Survey Framework

3.4.7 The SAFREP Task Force has already taken the initiative to adapt the revised Safety Maturity Framework to the new SES II regulatory environment while keeping the ability to measure safety maturity in a wider area.

3.4.8 However, the Safety Maturity Surveys remain based on self-assessment. The PRC considers that independent assessment and validation of the results will need to be put in place if the methodology is to be used in a context of performance regulation.

3.5 EC safety legislation and SES II 3.5.1 The SES II legislation will be a key driver for improving ATM safety in the years to

come. Safety is a crucial element of the SES II performance scheme, which will include binding safety performance targets for Member States, NSAs and ANSPs. Monitoring of safety performance will be carried out at national/FAB and EU levels, and alarm mechanisms will be put in place to address safety concerns requiring immediate action.

3.5.2 At EU level, safety regulation will be enhanced by the emergence of EASA as the single instrument for aviation safety rulemaking. The SES II legislation extends EASA’s mandate for rulemaking and standardisation inspections from the existing areas (airworthiness, environmental compatibility, air operations, air crew licensing and safety of third country aircraft operating in Europe) to cover ATM/ANS and aerodromes .

3.5.3 EASA is expected to contribute, at EU level, to the development of uniform, common rules for ATM/ANS and shall ensure a consistent and effective implementation of EC aviation law by carrying out safety analysis, investigations of undertakings and standardisation inspections of NSAs. The rulemaking, safety analysis and oversight activities of EASA will fully support the achievement of safety performance monitoring by promoting appropriate and efficient measures to improve safety rules and procedures while ensuring consistent implementation of safety performance targets to be reached by all EU States.


23

3.5.4 At national level, NSAs have an essential role in the implementation and enforcement of EC safety legislation. NSAs are accountable for the safety supervision of the ANSPs in their area of responsibility. This role is further reinforced by the SES II Performance scheme that requires the NSAs to set local targets consistent with the European-wide targets set by the European Commission and monitor safety performance at national/FAB level. Thus, NSAs will set safety targets and ensure that the applicable safety requirements are met by the ANSPs and they will also monitor safety performance and require corrective actions if deviations from safety performance or nonconformities with safety regulations are identified. NSAs will use all the national legislative and regulatory power to enforce the implementation of the EC legislation. If requested, they will be assisted by the Performance Review Body in setting up their performance monitoring rules and procedures.

3.6 ICAO Continuous Monitoring and SES II Performance scheme 3.6.1 The objective of the ICAO Universal Safety Oversight Audit Programme (USOAP) is to

promote global aviation safety through auditing States, on a regular basis, to determine States’ capability for safety oversight. Safety oversight audit results are published on the ICAO secure web site, which enhances the transparency in sharing of safety information across all ICAO Contracting States.

3.6.2 Figure 33 shows the level of transparency reached by EUROCONTROL Member States regarding the publication of USOAP results on the ICAO public web site http://www.icao.int/fsix/, as decided by all ICAO Contracting States at the DGCA Conference held in Montreal in March 2006.

Not audited - results pending

Chart & Report published

Only Chart published

Apr. 2010

Figure 33: Publication of USOAP audit results on ICAO public web site

3.6.3 The ICAO USOAP is now ten years old and has been a great incentive for States and stakeholders to further improve the overall safety level of facilities and processes. However, the application of USOAP without taking into account the analysis of risk factors and its implementation under the comprehensive systems approach is very challenging for both ICAO and Contracting States in terms of time and resources.

3.6.4 There is thus a need, according to ICAO, to reform and rationalise USOAP and make the programme more cost-efficient and focused on safety-risk assessment rather than on prescriptive regulatory compliance. In this respect ICAO Council adopted in 2009 a new Continuous Monitoring Approach (CMA) aiming at monitoring the safety performance of all the ICAO Contracting States on an ongoing basis.


24

3.6.5 The traffic growth and the increasing requirements to lower costs and improve quality of service make it difficult for international civil aviation to sustain an approach to the management of safety exclusively based upon regulatory compliance. It is essential to complement the prescriptive-based approach with a performance-based approach. An initial example of this approach is the implementation of Safety Management Systems (SMS), aimed at industry and service provision. It has now been extended to States through the State Safety Programmes (SSPs) that require, among others, the identification safety risk areas and corresponding mitigation measures, as well as the establishment of key performance indicators aiming at monitoring the safety performance at national level.

3.6.6 In line with this performance-based approach, and in addition to the minimum requirements of ICAO to monitor safety performance at State level, the new SES II legislation establishes, through its SES II Performance scheme and the extension of EASA responsibilities to ATM/ANS airports, a new mechanism to monitor safety performance at both service provision and State level through continuous ANS safety performance monitoring and Standardisation inspections of each EU Member State. Under this new approach, the PRB, EASA and all EU Member States shall closely cooperate with ICAO CMA to enhance safety in the EU airspace.

3.7 Just Culture 3.7.1 Just culture is a key element to enhance safety levels in all areas of aviation. It is a culture

in which “front line operators or others are not punished for actions, omissions or decisions taken by them that are commensurate with their experience and training, but where gross negligence, wilful violations and destructive acts are not tolerated.”9 For the last decade EUROCONTROL has initiated a number of activities aiming at improving just culture in its Member States, including development of guidance material, awareness campaigns, training of personnel and development of local implementation safety objectives in support to air navigation service providers and ANS regulators. However, not all the States have taken the necessary measures to overcome legal and cultural differences to achieve a fully non-punitive reporting system.

3.7.2 The implementation and measurement of safety indicators is only possible with a non-punitive and learning environment that allows for the collection of reliable and concrete safety data. All States concerned should have an appropriate legal structure to enable harmonised safety measurement and reporting.

3.7.3 Such inclusive and open reporting forms the basis for developing measures to enhance safety levels. Development of a just culture throughout the ECAC area should be a priority in every State.

3.7.4 In 2009 EUROCONTROL Member States have reported, through their Local Single Sky Implementation programme (LSSIP) the level of establishment of national arrangements for the implementation of a reporting and investigation system in a Just Culture environment. Figure 34 shows the status of implementation of Just Culture environment in ECAC Member States based on the self-assessment reports of each State. Only 19 EUROCONTROL Member States have reported full implementation and 10 have reported partial implementation. Six member States have planned the implementation, with expected completion by end 2010. Only one State (Ukraine) is late, with another one (Montenegro) not providing any information. The remaining ECAC Member States are either late or have not yet reported the status of implementation of Just Culture environment.

9 In the absence of an ICAO agreed definition, the EUROCONTROL definition has been used. New definitions will be proposed in the context of the High Level Safety Conference (see § 3.7.5).


25

3.7.5 Just culture was considered at the European Commission High-level Conference, held in Madrid (February 2010). The Declaration of Madrid, inter alia, states that the “participants to the Conference acknowledge the necessity to […] build the performance scheme on a genuine safety culture, integrating effective incident reporting and ‘just culture’ as the basis for safety performance”.

3.7.6 The EU also presented a paper to the ICAO High-level Safety Conference to improve reporting and interaction between safety and judicial authorities. This has a direct bearing on Just Culture and the proposal to establish an ICAO Task Force on Open Reporting offers the prospect of wider and more consistent safety reporting.

3.7.7 Moreover, the extension of EASA’s competence into ATM/CNS and Aerodrome will result in many of the rules and Standards applicable to aircraft operations becoming mandatory for ATM. A ‘culture of safety’ exists in EASA regulations as does the basic requirements for a just culture. Close coordination between EASA and EUROCONTROL (SRU/PRC) is needed to develop rules that enhance the reality of an Open reporting culture in European ATM.

Figure 34: Implementation of Just Culture environment in 2009

3.8 Transparency and sharing of safety information 3.8.1 The degree of transparency of safety-related information to the general public varies

widely across Europe. While some States make a whole range of safety data publicly available, including safety oversight audit results and State corrective actions, others limit the publication of their safety data to simple tables depicting the number of incidents and accidents per year or per flight hour. The level of transparency in the sharing of safety information is, in principle, closely related to the level of implementation of Just Culture in the particular State.

3.8.2 Publishing general safety information is however not uncommon in Europe. Figure 35 shows that safety information is published in many States, whether by the ANSP, the ANS regulator or both. Some of them have not made publicly available any safety information, while a growing number of ANSPs have published, in their annual reports, indicators on risk-bearing incidents as well as safety objectives in some cases. A sample of that data can be found in the ANSP fact sheets in Annex X of this report.


26

GR

AT

BA

HR

ALMK

CY

LU

SE

FI

RS

SKMD

ME

TR

FR

UA

ES

DE

PL

IT

NO

RO

GB

BG

PT

IE

HU

CZ

LT

LV

EE

CH

NLBE

AMSI

DK

MT

Public availability of information on ATM safety

source : EUROCONTROL/PRC

Maastricht UAC

Data available

Partial data

No safety data

Figure 35: Public availability of information on ATM safety

3.9 Automatic Safety Data Acquisition 3.9.1 Within the Performance Scheme of the SES II legislation, safety is explicitly identified as

one of the key performance areas to be monitored. Furthermore, with increasing pressures on the other three areas (i.e. capacity, environment and costs), safety needs to be very closely monitored to ensure that pressure from other performance areas does not negatively impact safety.

3.9.2 The PRC has long advocated the general introduction of automated tools for assessing safety performance. Currently, there are a number of such initiatives backed by various solutions.

3.9.3 It appears that acceptance of automatic acquisition data for the purposes of safety and/or risk monitoring has made great progress lately, in particular in the context of ensuring safety under the pressures from other areas highlighted above.

IT

LT

AL

FR CH

NL

RO

GB

HU

SK

EUROCONTROL ASMT + own tool

EUROCONTROL ASMT

Own tool for certain incidents

EUROCONTROL ASMT for 2010

Figure 36: States with automatic reporting tools

3.9.4 Automated data acquisition tools already exist in a number of ATC centres. More stations are to come.

3.9.5 Automated safety data acquisition can serve two different but complementary purposes:

First, automated safety data acquisition can be used by the ANSP to augment the manual data collection in support of its own Safety Management System (SMS),


27

where events detected manually or automatically are analysed and lessons learned are used for a continuous improvement of the safety level.

The other use of automated safety data acquisition is done rather at a Local or European scale for the purpose of monitoring a certain level of risk. The focus of such monitoring is not the individual event, but aggregated statistics that are not influenced by change of the level of safety occurrence reporting. Such statistics can provide indication of trends in time, or identify geographical ‘hot-spots’ or highlight other sensitive issues.

3.9.6 The establishment of automated data acquisition tools at European level is not a technological issue. It requires however a clear mandate and right of access to data to develop an independent means for safety risk measurement: (i) to support the monitoring of airspace infringements, ground proximity, separation minima infringements and level busts and (ii) to enable these occurrences to be mitigated at European level.

3.9.7 A good example of such approach is the height monitoring unit (HMU) which has been established related to a particular operational issue (i.e. RVSM). One of the roles of the HMU is to assess the risk of collision in the vertical plan and to monitor that the Target Level of Safety (TLS) is being met.

3.9.8 Moreover, EASA regulations for the automatic collection and investigation of TCAS-derived encounters offer the prospect of developing an automatic safety data acquisition tool for European ATM.

3.9.9 Additionally, systematic capture and analysis of safety occurrences in the European network (hotspots) are essential for the Network Management function in their role of optimising the design of the network from a safety point of view

3.9.10 The deployment of automatic safety data acquisition offers the best prospect of establishing an accurate, reliable and transparent safety database for Europe.

3.9.11 There is an urgent need to clarify the institutional, legal and organisational aspects related to such an endeavour with close cooperation between ICAO, the EU, EUROCONTROL and States.

3.10 Conclusions 3.10.1 There was no accident with direct ATM contribution in 2009 involving commercial

aviation.

3.10.2 ESARR 2 data for 2008 shows a decrease in the number of high-severity Separation Minima Infringements and runway incursions being reported. However, the number of ‘not investigated’ ATM safety occurrences remains high. It is noteworthy that, even in 2010, the ESARR2 data for 2008 remains provisional. This is why the PRC considers that the current manual reporting should be complemented by independent monitoring based on automatic safety data acquisition tools.

3.10.3 There is a continuous increase in the reporting of incidents in many States. However, it remains of major concern that the number of reporting States remains relatively low (29) and has not increased in the last five years.

3.10.4 The PC target of all Member States reaching at least 70% safety maturity by the end of 2008 was not met by 11 Regulators and 7 ANSPs. However, the average safety maturity at the end of 2008 was 82% for ANSPs and 76% for Regulators.

3.10.5 Just culture is a key element to enhance safety levels in all areas of aviation. However,


28

not all the States have taken the necessary measures to achieve a fully non-punitive reporting system. All States should be urged by EUROCONTROL and the EC to have an appropriate legal, cultural and institutional structure to enable harmonised safety measurement and reporting.

3.10.6 In accordance with SES II legislation, safety targets will be set and monitored for EU and associated States starting from 2012, which represents significant progress. This could be extended to all EUROCONTROL Member States by decision of the Provisional Council.

3.10.7 Aviation is a global industry with accountabilities and obligations at international, regional, national and local levels. A clear structure with well defined accountabilities at each level is essential to develop comprehensive and well considered initiatives to improve safety across Europe and the world.

3.10.8 There is an urgent need to clarify the institutional, legal and organisational aspects related to the deployment of automatic safety data acquisition, with close cooperation between ICAO, the EU, EUROCONTROL and States.

Chapter 4: Air Transport Network Performance

PRR 2009 Chapter 4: Air Transport Network Performance

29

4 Air Transport Network Performance


Virtually all performance indicators related to operational air transport performance show a notable improvement in 2009. The share of flights delayed by more than 15 minutes compared to schedule decreased from 21.6% in 2008 to 17.9% in 2009. This improvement needs to be seen in context with the significant drop in traffic (-6.6%) which reduced traffic to 2006 levels.

The unprecedented drop in traffic reduced demand far below planned capacity levels in 2009. The resulting spare capacity in most areas (airlines, airports, ATC) translated into better turn around performance (airlines, airports, security, etc.), a reduction of ATFM en-route delays and resulting positive effects for the network.

In 2009, ANS-related delays (including weather related delays handled by ANS) accounted for some 25% of total departure delays, compared to 28% in 2008.

There is a high correlation between the ANS delays reported by airlines in CODA and the ATFM delay calculated by the CFMU.

Although ATFM slot adherence shows a continuous improvement between 2003 and 2009, the share of departures outside the ATFM slot tolerance window at some airports is still high.

A special effort shall be undertaken to promote and monitor Flight Plan adherence.

4.1 Introduction 4.1.1 The analysis of operational air transport performance in this report is divided into three

separate chapters, as outlined in the conceptual framework in Figure 37.

4.1.2 This chapter evaluates operational air transport performance and underlying delay drivers in order to provide an estimate of the ANS-related contribution.

4.1.3 A more detailed analysis of ANS-related operational performance requires a differentiation between the en-route environment (where performance is largely in the hand of ANS) and the airport environment (where performance is affected by many factors). ANS-related performance en-route and at airport is addressed in more detail in Chapters 5 and 6 respectively (see Figure 37).

CHAPTER 4

Air Transport Performance (Network)

CHAPTER 6

ANS-related contribution

(Airport)

CHAPTER 5

ANS-related contribution (En-route)

ActualOff-block time

Actual landing time

Actual in-block time

Pre-departure

delays

En-route ATFM delays

Airport ATFM delays

Airborne holding & sequencing

En-route Flight efficiency

Taxi-out phase

Actual take-off time

Scheduled departure

Scheduled arrival time

Taxi-in phase

ArrivalPunctuality

Gat

e-to

-gat

e per

form

ance

Sch

edul

ing

ANS related pre-departure delays

DeparturePunctuality

Figure 37: Conceptual framework for the analysis of operational air transport performance


30

4.2 Air Transport Punctuality 4.2.1 This section analyses the performance compared to published airline schedules which is

part of the quality of service expected by airline passengers.

4.2.2 The proportion of flights delayed by more than 15 minutes compared to schedule is generally used as Key Performance Indicator (KPI) for “Punctuality”.

4.2.3 Punctuality is the “end product” of complex interactions between airlines, airport operators, the CFMU and ANSPs, from the planning and scheduling phases up to the day of operation.

Performance on the day of operations

Scheduling of operations

Punctuality

Airport Airlines ANS

Airport Airlines ANS

Figure 38: Punctuality of Operations

4.2.4 Figure 39 shows the share of flights delayed by more than 15 minutes compared to schedule between 2000 and 2009.

4.2.5 After a substantial improvement between 2000 and 2003, on time performance deteriorated continuously until 2007.

4.2.6 2008 and 2009 show an improvement in on time performance but this needs to be seen in context with the unprecedented traffic decrease (-6.6%) which reduced demand far below planned capacity levels in 2009.

4.2.7 Although traffic levels in 2009 were comparable to 2006 levels, the share of arrivals delayed by more than 15 minutes was in 2009 significantly lower than in 2006 (17.9% vs. 21.8%) as a result of the spare capacity in 2009.

26

.9%

25

.2%

18

.3%

17

.2%

18.8

%

20

.4%

21

.8%

22.1

%

21

.6%

17

.9%

7.2

%

6.7

%

6.4

%

6.8

%

7.4

% 10

.1%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

2000

*

2001

*

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

% o

f fli

ghts

DEPARTURES delayed by more than 15 min. (%)

ARRIVALS delayed by more than 15 min. (%)

ARRIVALS more than 15 min. ahead of schedule (%)

Source: AEA*/ CODA

All flights to/from Europe

Figure 39: On time performance between 2000-2009

4.2.8 The underlying drivers of ANS-related operational air transport performance are analysed in more detail in section 4.5 of this chapter.

4.2.9 Whereas, from an airline viewpoint “early” flights most likely result in an underutilisation of resources, from an airport and ATC point of view, flights ahead of schedule can affect performance in a similar way as delayed flights (gate availability, variability of traffic flows, etc.).

4.2.10 The share of flights arriving more than 15 minutes ahead of schedule is shown in Figure 39. Compared to previous years, there was a significant increase in flights arriving ahead of schedule in 2009.

4.2.11 Although it is the commonly used industry standard which has been used for years, it would be useful to move towards a higher level of accuracy (i.e. 5 or 10 minute bands) for the analysis of schedule adherence. This would be appropriate considering the fact


31

that the 15 minute “allowance” represents a large share of the scheduled block time on intra European flights (i.e. 25% if the scheduled block time is 60 min.) and the efforts to increase the level of precision within the European air transport network.

4.2.12 The system wide on-time performance is the result of contrasted situations among airports. Figure 40 shows the departure and arrival punctuality for the top 20 European airports in terms of movements in 2009 (see also Chapter 6).

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

Par

is (

CD

G)

Lond

on (

LHR

)

Fra

nkfu

rt (

FR

A)

Mad

rid (

MA

D)

Am

ster

dam

(A

MS

)

Mun

ich

(MU

C)

Rom

e (F

CO

)

Bar

celo

na (

BC

N)

Ista

nbul

(IS

T)

Vie

nna

(VIE

)

Lond

on (

LGW

)

Zur

ich

(ZR

H)

Cop

enha

gen

(CP

H)

Bru

ssel

s (B

RU

)

Par

is (

OR

Y)

Osl

o (O

SL)

Dus

seld

orf

(DU

S)

Ath

ens

(AT

H)

Sto

ckho

lm (

AR

N)

Mila

n (M

XP

)

Arrivals Departures

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Cov

erag

e of

dat

a su

bmitt

ed b

y ar

iline

s (%

of t

otal

flig

hts)

CO

DA

% o

f flig

hts

dela

yed

by m

ore

than

15

min

.

Source: CODA

Punctuality at the top 20 airports in terms of movements in 2009

2008

2009

Yearly average

Source: CODA/ PRC analysis

Figure 40: Punctuality at the top 20 airports in terms of movements

4.2.13 At some airports (most notably Rome (FCO), there is a notable difference between the punctuality of the inbound and outbound flights. The operations at those airports have a delay-amplifying effect on the European air transport network.

4.2.14 The difference between the arrival and the departure punctuality is predominantly driven by local turn-around performance. For example, if the facilities (i.e. ground handling, security, etc.) at an airport are not dimensioned to handle the corresponding traffic volume the resulting departure delays will also have an impact on overall ANS performance. More work is required to better understand the interrelation between operational performance at individual airports and the air transport network.

4.3 Scheduling of air transport operations 4.3.1 Due to the high level of public interest, it is in an airline’s best interest to operate flights

within the 15-minute punctuality window.

4.3.2 However, from an analytical point of view, the monitoring of punctuality alone is not sufficient as airlines build their schedules for the next season to some extent on historic block time distributions which may already include a “buffer” for expected delay.


32

Airline scheduling

Airlines build their schedules for the next season on airport slot allocation, crew activity limits, airport connecting times and the distribution of historic block times. Increases in the observed block time in a given year will most often be reflected in the schedule for the next season. Increased block times contribute to preserve punctuality and schedule integrity but result in lower utilisation of resources (e.g. aircraft, crews) and higher overall costs.

Schedule

Earlyarrival

OUT OFF ON IN

Buffer

Latearrival

AirborneTaxi Out Taxi In

Behindschedule

Ahead of schedule

Delay

ON Time

4.3.3 Changes in arrival punctuality may be the result of improvements in actual travel times or adjustments of scheduled block times.

4.3.4 Hence, operational improvements do not automatically result in better punctuality in the next season.

4.3.5 Figure 41 shows the evolution of scheduled and actual block times on Intra European flights between 2003 and 2009. Additionally, the departure delay at origin and the arrival delay at destination are shown.

4.3.6 The changes observed are relative to the average for the entire period (2003-2009) and enable to visualise changes in performance over time (DLTA Metric) but without identifying underlying drivers.

4.3.7 Figure 41 shows that overall the scheduled (red line) and actual (blue line) block times remained relatively stable between 2003 and 2009. The low level of variation in the actual block times is partly due to the air traffic flow management in Europe. While in the US flow management strategies focus more on the gate-to-gate phase, in Europe flights are usually held at the gates with only comparatively few constraints once they have left the gate [Ref. 16].

DLTA Metric

The Difference from Long-Term Average (DLTA) metric is designed to measure relative change in time-based performance (e.g. flight time) normalised by selected criteria (origin, destination, aircraft type, etc.) for which sufficient data are available. The analysis compares actual performance for each flight of a given city pair with the long term average (i.e. average between 2003 and 2009) for that city pair.

-2.5

-2.0

-1.5

-1.0

-0.5

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

De

c-0

2

Jun

-03

De

c-0

3

Jun

-04

De

c-0

4

Jun

-05

De

c-0

5

Jun

-06

De

c-0

6

Jun

-07

De

c-0

7

Jun

-08

De

c-0

8

Jun

-09

De

c-0

9

Arrival delay at destination(s) Departure delay at origin airport(s)

Scheduled block time Actual block time

De

via

tion

fro

m th

e lo

ng

term

ave

rag

e (

20

03

-20

09

) in

min

ute

s

Source: CODA; PRC Analysis

Figure 41: Evolution of scheduled block times in Europe (intra-European flights)


33

4.3.8 Arrival delay is mainly driven by departure delay at the origin airports. The drop in departure and arrival delay due to the economic crisis and the resulting fall in traffic in 2009 is striking.

4.3.9 While no significant change in block times can be observed at European level, the situation at local level can be different.

4.3.10 Figure 42 shows the evolution of the block time for intra-European flights bound for London Heathrow.

4.3.11 Actual block times have increased continuously until 2008. This is reflected to some extent in the scheduled block times which have increased by more than 1 minute in the last 2 years.

-8.0

-6.0

-4.0

-2.0

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

De

c-0

2

Jun

-03

De

c-0

3

Jun

-04

De

c-0

4

Jun

-05

De

c-0

5

Jun

-06

De

c-0

6

Jun

-07

De

c-0

7

Jun

-08

De

c-0

8

Jun

-09

De

c-0

9

Arrival delay at destination(s) Departure delay at origin airport(s)

Scheduled block time Actual block time

De

via

tion

fro

m th

e lo

ng

term

ave

rag

e (

20

03

-20

09

) in

min

ute

s


Figure 42: Block times on inbound flights to London

4.3.12 In 2009, actual block times (blue line) dropped sharply as a result of the crisis and this starts to be reflected in the block times of the winter schedules (red line).

4.3.13 Additionally it is interesting to note that the arrival delay in London (LHR) is clearly affected by departure delays (green line) and also the actual block times (blue line).

4.4 Predictability of air transport operations

4.4.1 Due to the multitude of variables involved in air transport, a certain level of variability is natural.

4.4.2 However, depending on the magnitude and frequency of the variations, those variations can become a serious issue for airline scheduling departments as they have to balance the utilisation of their resources (aircraft, crew, etc.) with the targeted service quality.

4.4.3 Figure 43 shows the variability on intra European flights by flight phase. The band between the 80th and 20th percentile (green bar) shows that very few flights depart before their scheduled departure time but a considerable number of flights arrive before their scheduled arrival time.

Predictability vs. Efficiency

“Predictability” evaluates the level of variability in air transport operations as experienced by airlines (i.e. variability of flight XYZ123 from A to B). It focuses on the variance (distribution width) associated with the individual phases of flight (1).

In order to limit the impact from outliers, variability is measured as the difference between the 80th and the 20th percentile for each flight phase. Flights scheduled less than 20 times per month are excluded. “Efficiency” generally relates actual performance to a pre-defined optimum (2). It can be expressed in terms of fuel and time.

Time

Observations

(2) Closer to Optimum

(1) Reduce Variability

4.4.4 This is consistent with the observation made in Figure 39 which shows the percentage of arrivals more than 15 minutes ahead of schedule.


34

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

20

20

03

20

04

20

05

20

06

20

07

20

08

20

09

20

03

20

04

20

05

20

06

20

07

20

08

20

09

20

03

20

04

20

05

20

06

20

07

20

08

20

09

20

03

20

04

20

05

20

06

20

07

20

08

20

09

20

03

20

04

20

05

20

06

20

07

20

08

20

09

Departure time Taxi-out phase Flight time (cruising+ terminal area)

Taxi-in phase Arrrival time

min

utes

20th Percentile 80th Percentile Standard Deviation

Gate-to-gate phase Source: EUROCONTROL/ CODA

Figure 43: Variability of flight phases on Intra European flights

4.4.5 Although the gate-to-gate phase is affected by a multitude of variables including congestion (queuing at take-off and airborne holdings in terminal area), aircraft operators flight planning processes, wind and flow management measures applied by ANS, the level of variability at system level is small and relatively stable compared to the departure time variability.

4.4.6 It should however be noted that the level of variability in the taxi-out phase and the level of airborne holdings in the terminal area can differ significantly between airports.

4.4.7 The main driver of arrival time variability is clearly departure delay induced at the various origin airports which is consistent with Figure 41 which shows a high correlation between departure delays (green line) and arrival delays (grey bars).

4.4.8 Departure-time variability, and hence arrival-time variability increased between 2003 and 2006 but showed a strong improvement between 2007 and 2009 which reflects the significant decrease in departure delay due to the reduction in air traffic starting in 2008.

4.4.9 ANS contributes to departure time variability through ANS-related departure holdings (mainly ATFM delays) and subsequent reactionary delays on the following flight legs.

4.5 Drivers of departure delays

4.5.1 This section provides a more detailed analysis of the drivers of departure delays in Europe which were identified as the main source of variability in the European air transport network (see Figure 43).

4.5.2 The analysis in Figure 44 is based on data reported voluntarily to the Central Office for Delay Analysis (CODA) by airlines.

Central Office for Delay Analysis (CODA)

In Europe, CODA collects data from airlines each month. The data collection started in 2002 and the reporting is voluntarily.

Currently, the CODA coverage is approximately 60% of scheduled flights. The data reported include OOOI data (Gate Out, Wheels Off, Wheels On, and Gate In), schedule information and causes of delay, according to the IATA delay coding system. The reported delays refer to the scheduled departure times.


35

4.5.3 The departure delay codes are grouped into the following main categories:

Turn around related delays (non-ATFCM): are primary delays caused by airlines (technical, boarding, etc.), airports (equipment, etc.) or other parties such as ground handlers involved in the turn around process.

ANS-related delays: are primary delays resulting from an imbalance between demand and available capacity. The analysis in Figure 44 distinguishes between airport (IATA code 83), en-route (IATA codes 81, 82), and weather10 related ATFCM delays (IATA code 84) and ANS-related delays at the departure airport (IATA Code 89) (see also Chapter 6).

Weather related delays (non-ATFCM): This group contains delays due to unfavourable weather conditions including delays due to snow removal or de-icing. Weather related delays handled by ANS are not included (see previous category).

Reactionary delays are secondary delays caused by primary delays on earlier flight legs which cannot be absorbed during the turn-around phase at the airport.

4.5.4 Almost half of the departure delay reported to CODA is reactionary delays from previous flight legs (see left side of Figure 44). Reactionary delay is analysed in more detail in a later section of this chapter.

4.5.5 The distribution of primary delays in the middle of Figure 44 shows that by far the largest share of departure delays ( 70%) originates from areas not handled by ANS (i.e. turn-around, etc.). In 2009, ANS-related delays (including weather related delays handled by ANS) accounted for some 25% of total departure delays, compared to 28% in 2008.

4.5.6 Due to the unprecedented drop in traffic, the planned capacity exceeded the actual demand by far in 2009. The resulting spare capacity in most areas (airlines, airports, ATC) translated into better turn-around performance (airlines, airports, security, etc.), a reduction of ATFCM en-route delays and resulting positive effects for the network.

10% 13% 10%

4%4%

4%3%

3%2%

7%8%

9%

6%5%

5%

5%6% 9%

3%3% 6%5%

5%

56%50%

4%

53%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2007

2008

2009

ATFCM (En-route) ATFCM (Weather) ATFCM (Airport)

ANS (Dep. Airport) Airport Weather (non ATFCM)

Misc. Security & Immigrations Airline

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Jan

-06

Jul-0

6

Jan

-07

Jul-0

7

Jan

-08

Jul-0

8

Jan

-09

Jul-0

9

Jan

-10

dela

y pe

r fli

ght (

min

.)ANS (Dep. Airport)ATFCM (weather + airport)ReactionaryEn-route ATFCMNot handled by ANS

Re

act

ion

ary

Re

act

ion

ary

Re

act

ion

ary

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2007

2008

2009


Departure delay drivers(based on all causes of delay as from 1 min.)

No

n-A

NS

re

late

dp

rima

ry d

ela

ysA

NS

r

ela

ted

prim

ary

d

ela

y s

AT

FC

M

d

ela

ys

Figure 44: Drivers of departure delays between 2007 and 2009

10 ATFM regulations and reduced acceptance rates for safety reasons due to adverse weather.


36

4.5.7 There was a notable increase in weather related delays at the departure airports which is mainly due to snow in the winter of 2009.

4.5.8 In order to improve air transport performance, a clear understanding of all root causes is needed ( 70% of delay originates from non ANS related reasons). Airlines and airports are encouraged to develop methods to precisely determine and validate the origin of the delays. In view of the significant costs involved, some airlines and airports have already working groups dedicated to the improvement of the turn around processes. However, as this report focuses on ANS performance, a thorough analysis of the complex and interrelated pre-departure processes is beyond the scope of the report.

4.5.9 Complementary to the analysis of delays reported by airlines to CODA in Figure 44, the analysis in Figure 46 shows a breakdown of ATFM delays11 reported by the CFMU.

CONSISTENCY BETWEEN ANS DELAYS REPORTED BY CODA AND THE CFMU

4.5.10 Figure 45 compares the ANS delays reported by airlines (CODA) to the ATFM delays reported by the CFMU.

4.5.11 At system level, there is a level of correlation between the ANS delays reported in the two data sources.

4.5.12 It is interesting to note that on average ATFM delays reported by the CFMU are higher than those reported by airlines.

4.5.13 As airlines use the delay data for the improvement of their internal processes, they often report delays which are not visible to the CFMU.

Correlation between CODA and CFMU data

y = 0.4999x

R2 = 0.9301

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

ATFM delay reported by the CFMU ('000)

AN

S-r

elat

ed d

elay

rep

orte

d by

airl

ines

('0

00)

Each dot in this figure represents one day

Figure 45: Correlation between CODA and CFMU data

4.5.14 For instance, when a flight gets an ATFM slot causing a 30 minute delay but the flight is delayed by 10 minutes due to late boarding, airlines often report 10 minutes of boarding delay and 20 minutes of ATFM delay. Not being aware of the boarding delay, the CFMU would report a total ATFM delay of 30 minute in this example.

4.5.15 ATFM delays can be due to capacity constraints where ANS is the root cause (i.e. staffing) but also due to constraints (i.e. weather) where the situation was handled by ANS. In order to avoid allocation issues, the categories “ATC Capacity” and “Staffing” have been combined.

4.5.16 At European system level, en-route ATFM delays are higher than airport-related ATFM delays.

ATFM delays In Europe when traffic demand is anticipated to exceed the available capacity in en-route centres or at airports, ATC units may call for an ATFM regulation. Aircraft expected to arrive during a period of congestion are held upstream at the departure airport by the CFMU until the downstream en-route or airport capacity constraint is cleared.

The delays are calculated with reference to the times in the last submitted flight plan and the reason for the regulation is indicated by the responsible Flow Management Position (FMP). The delay is attributed to the most constraining ATC unit.

11 Note that the ATFM delays reported by the CFMU relate to the flight plan while the delays reported by airlines to CODA relate to the published scheduled departure time.


37

4.5.17 En-route ATFM delays increased considerably between 2003 and 2008 but show a significant drop in 2009. En-route delays are driven almost entirely by ATC capacity and staffing related constraints (see right side of Figure 46). They are analysed in more detail in Chapter 5. ATFM regulation

requested by ACC

ArrivalAirport

DepartureAirport

ACC anticipating capacity shortfall

CFMU

Aircraft held atdep. airport

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

Airport ATFM delays

aver

ge m

in. o

f AT

FM

del

ay p

er d

ay (

'000

)

ATC Capacity & Staffing ATC Other (strike, equipment, etc.)

OTHER (Special event, military, etc.) Weather delays handled by ANS

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009


0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

Airport ATFM delays


Distribution of average daily ATFM delays by cause of delay ('000 min.)

Source: EUROCONTROL CFMU

Airport ATFM delays En-route ATFM delays

Figure 46: Distribution of average daily ATFM delays by cause of delay

4.5.18 The airport environment (where capacity is predominantly a function of the infrastructure and weather but also other factors) is more complex and clear cut allocation between ANS and non-ANS related causes (weather, congestion, etc.) is sometimes difficult. While ANS may not always be the root cause for the capacity shortfall at airports, the way the situation is handled can have a significant influence on performance (i.e. distribution of delay between air and ground) and thus on costs to airspace users. ANS-related performance at airports is analysed in more detail in Chapter 6.

4.6 Reactionary delays 4.6.1 Reactionary delays are by nature a network issue. However, despite the large share of

reactionary delay (see Figure 44), there is currently only a limited knowledge of how airline, airport and ATM management decisions affect the propagation of reactionary delay throughout the air transport network.


38

Figure 47: Types of reactionary delays

4.6.2 Due to the interconnected nature of the air transport network, long primary delays can propagate throughout the network until the end of the same operational day or even longer for medium and long haul traffic. Depending on a multitude of factors such as the time of the day, length of the delay, aircraft utilisation, airline strategy etc., the primary delay may not only affect the initially delayed airframe on successive legs but may also affect other aircraft waiting for passengers or crew, as illustrated in Figure 47.

4.6.3 Two elements determine the magnitude of the delay propagation:

1) the primary delay parameters (i.e. time of the day, length of the delay, etc.) and;, 2) the ability of the air transport system to absorb primary delay (i.e. aircraft utilisation

including scheduled block times and turnaround times, airline business model, contingency procedures, turn around efficiency at airports, effectiveness of airport CDM processes, etc.).

4.6.4 Strategies aimed at reducing the level of reactionary delay can therefore aim at reducing or avoiding long primary delays in the first half of the day and/or to reduce the sensitivity of the air transport network to primary delays.

4.6.5 Figure 48 shows the sensitivity of the air transport network to primary delays by relating reactionary delays to primary delays. For instance, a ratio of 0.8 means that every minute of primary delay generates 0.8 minutes of additional reactionary delay, on average.

0.40

0.45

0.50

0.55

0.60

0.65

0.70

0.75

0.80

0.85

0.90

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

AEA data CODA data

ratio

re

act

ion

ary

to p

rima

ry d

ela

y

Sensitivity of the European air transport network to primary delays(intra-European flights)

Primary delay includes local turnaround delays and en-route and airport ATFM delays

Figure 48: Sensitivity of the Air Transport Network to primary delays

4.6.6 After a continuous increase between 2003 and 2008, a clear improvement is notable for 2009. Reasons for changes in the sensitivity to primary delays can be manifold

1 2 3

Primary delay

Aircraft 1

Aircraft 2

1 2

Awaiting crew, connecting passenger, etc.

Reactionary delay


39

(utilisation level of resources, schedule padding, airline strategies, airport CDM, etc.) and the improvement in 2009 is certainly the result of the reduction in traffic levels due to the economic crisis.

4.6.7 Depending on the type of operation at airports (hub & spoke versus point to point), local performance can have an impact on the entire network but also on the airport’s own operation. Flights frequently returning to their hub airport return a certain percentage of primary delay originally experienced at the hub.

4.6.8 The analysis in Figure 49 illustrates how airports are affected by their own operations. The analysis was carried out for a limited number of large airports with various levels of hub-and-spoke operations [Ref. 17]. Only flights between the analysed airport and another airport (i.e. every second leg is by definition the analysed airport) were included.

4.6.9 The impact of airport operations on its own performance varies notably by airport. For example, for every minute of primary delay generated at London Gatwick airport, more than half a minute is returned on subsequent flights returning to London Gatwick.

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

Lo

nd

on

(LG

W)

Ma

dri

d(M

AD

)

Ba

rce

lon

a(B

CN

)

Lo

nd

on

(LH

R)

Co

pe

nh

ag

en

(CP

H)

Fra

nkf

urt

(FR

A)

Mu

nic

h(M

UC

)

Am

ste

rda

m(A

MS

)

Ro

me

(F

CO

)

Zu

rich

(Z

RH

)

min

ute

s

Primary delay returned to origin airport (Summer 08)

Figure 49: Impact of airport operations on its own performance

4.7 Network management (ATFM) 4.7.1 This section evaluates the performance of the ATFM function12. ATFM measures are put

in place to protect en-route sectors or airports from receiving more traffic than the air traffic controllers can safely handle (declared ATC capacity).

4.7.2 The ATFM function and the performance assessment thereof will be addressed in the Commission Regulation (EU) laying down common rules on air traffic flow management. The Regulation lays down the requirements for ATFM in order to optimise the available capacity of the European air traffic management network and enhance ATFM processes. It requires, inter alia, the central unit for ATFM to produce annual reports indicating the quality of the ATFM in the airspace of the Regulation (see also §4.7.8).

4.7.3 Until more detailed information becomes available from the aforementioned EU Regulation, the following three performance indicators are used to monitor overall ATFM performance levels:

ATFM over-deliveries;

12 Local ATFM units and the central unit for ATFM (i.e. CFMU).


40

ATFM slot adherence and;

Inappropriate ATFM regulations.

4.7.4 Accurate flight plan information and flight plan adherence are essential for the functioning of the air transport network. Changes which are not communicated properly result in inaccurate traffic projections en-route and for the destination airport which in turn may lead to an underutilisation of capacity or excessive workload for controllers, and a safety issue.

4.7.5 Figure 50 shows the share of ATFM over-deliveries between 2003 and 2009. Over-deliveries varied between 9 and 11% between 2003 and 2007 but showed a slight increase in 2008 and 2009.

5%6%7%8%9%

10%11%12%13%14%15%

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

% regulated hours with actual demand/ capacity >110% (excess demand)

source: EUROCONTROL/ CFMU

Figure 50: ATFM over-deliveries

Over-deliveries

Over-deliveries occur when more aircraft than planned enter a protected sector exceeding the regulated capacity by more than 10%. Ideally the share of regulated hours with over-deliveries should be reduced as much as possible to improve confidence in the system (some ATS providers reserve up to 10% to account for possible over-deliveries) and to protect controllers from excessive workload. Over-deliveries can have various reasons including:

deviation from the flight level initially requested in the flight plan;

deviation from the route initially requested in the flight plan;

departing at times different from flight plan or the allocated ATFM slot; and,

deviation from the ground speed initially planned.

4.7.6 Figure 51 shows the European ATFM slot adherence between 2003 and 2009. While a continuous improvement is notable, there is scope for further improvement considering the fact that that almost every fifth ATFM regulated flight departs outside its allocated ATFM window.

ATFM slot adherence

ATFM slot adherence measures the share of take-offs outside the allocated ATFM window.

An ATFM slot tolerance window (-5min +10 min) is available to ATC to organise the departure sequencing.

ATC at the departure airport has a joint responsibility with aircraft operators to depart within the allocated ATFM window in order to avoid over-deliveries. 10.0%

12.5%

15.0%

17.5%

20.0%

22.5%

25.0%

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

% of take-offs outside the allocated ATFM window


Figure 51: ATFM slot adherence


41

4.7.7 Figure 52 shows the proportion of ATFM regulated flights departing outside the ATFM window at the top 20 airports in terms of movements in 2009.

4.7.8 The new Regulation (see paragraph 4.7.2) is expected to have a positive impact on ATFM slot adherence which is addressed directly in Article 11. At airports where the share of take-offs outside the ATFM slot window is 20% or higher, the respective ATS units have to provide relevant information of non-compliance and the actions taken to ensure adherence to ATFM slots.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Pa

ris

(CD

G)

Fra

nkf

urt

(F

RA

)

Am

ste

rda

m (

AM

S)

Lo

nd

on

(L

HR

)

Mu

nic

h (

MU

C)

Ma

dri

d (

MA

D)

Zu

rich

(Z

RH

)

Bru

sse

ls (

BR

U)

Du

sse

ldo

rf (

DU

S)

Co

pe

nh

ag

en

(C

PH

)

Vie

nn

a (

VIE

)

Ba

rce

lon

a (

BC

N)

Lo

nd

on

(L

GW

)

Mila

n (

MX

P)

Ro

me

(F

CO

)

Sto

ckh

olm

(A

RN

)

Osl

o (

OS

L)

Ath

en

s (A

TH

)

Pa

ris

(OR

Y)

AT

FM

re

gu

late

d d

ep

art

ure

s ('0

00

)

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

% o

utsid

e A

TF

M w

ind

ow

(-5/+

10

min

.)

Within ATFM slot window Early take off

Late take off % outside ATFM window Source: CFMU

Figure 52: ATFM slot adherence at airports

4.7.9 Figure 53 shows the percentage of ATFM delay due to inappropriate regulations between 2003 and 2009. On average almost 8% of the ATFM delay is not considered to be necessary because there was no excess of demand. It reflects the fact that ANSPs tend to publish “defensive” regulations in order to cope with potential over-deliveries due to non-adherence to slots and flight plans.

4.7.10 Of similar importance for the network is the adherence to flight plans and initiatives to better monitor and improve flight plan adherence should be further encouraged.

0%1%2%3%4%5%6%7%8%9%

10%

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

% of ATFM delays due to inappropriate regulations (no excess demand)


Figure 53: Delay due to inappropriate ATFM regulations

Inappropriate ATFM regulations

ATFM regulations are considered to be inappropriate when there was no excess of demand.

However, the decision to call for an ATFM regulation depends on the level of information available at the time when the decision needs to be taken (i.e. at least two hours before the anticipated capacity shortfall to be effective). Hence the accuracy of the traffic and MET forecast two or more hours before the actual event is crucial for the decision making process and should be improved as much as possible.


42

4.8 Conclusions 4.8.1 Virtually all performance indicators related to operational air transport performance show

a notable improvement in 2009.

4.8.2 The share of flights delayed by more than 15 minutes compared to schedule decreased from 21.6% in 2008 to 17.9% in 2009. This needs to be seen in context with the significant drop in traffic (-6.6%) which reduced traffic to 2006 levels.

4.8.3 The unprecedented drop in traffic reduced demand far below planned capacity levels in 2009. The resulting spare capacity in most areas (airlines, airports, ATC) translated into better turnaround performance (airlines, airports, security, etc.), a reduction of ATFM en-route delays and resulting positive effects for the network.

4.8.4 In 2009, ANS-related delays (including weather related delays handled by ANS) accounted for some 25% of total departure delays, compared to 28% in 2008.

4.8.5 There is a high correlation between the ANS delays reported by airlines in CODA and the ATFM delay calculated by the CFMU.

4.8.6 Although ATFM slot adherence shows a continuous improvement between 2003 and 2009, departures outside ATFM slots remain disproportionately high at some airports. Improvements are expected with application of the ATFM Regulation and oversight by the Network Management function.

4.8.7 Flight plan adherence is still a major concern: it should be monitored with appropriate tools and encouraged to avoid over deliveries and waste of resources.

Chapter 5: Operational En-route Performance

PRR 2009 43 Chapter 5: Operational En-route Performance

5 Operational En-route Performance


Although ATFM en-route delay decreased from 1.9 to 1.2 minutes per flight in summer 2009, the en-route delay target of 1 minute per flight was not met in 2009, notwithstanding the significant decline in traffic which reduced traffic levels far below planned ANSP capacity in 2009.

The traditional indicator “delay per flight” is not easy to communicate and is therefore complemented by the “percentage of flights delayed by more than 15 minutes”.

For the full year, the percentage of flights delayed by more than 15 minutes due to en-route ATFM restriction decreased from 4.0% in 2008 to 2.6% in 2009.

Shortcomings in the planning and deployment of staff in a limited number of ACCs appear to be the main drivers of en-route ATFM delay in 2009. For the evaluation and monitoring of the ANSP capacity plans, there is presently only limited information concerning the relation between staff- and capacity planning available from ANSPs.

A high number of ATM system upgrades are planned over the next three years which will require adequate planning at local level and proper co-ordination at network level for which a European network function will be essential.

Despite the uncertainties presently attached to traffic forecasts, it is important to continue to close the existing capacity gaps and to carefully plan capacity increases to accommodate future traffic demand.

The SES II performance scheme and the subsequent capacity target setting is expected to improve the capacity planning process at local and network level and pave the way to the development of a crucial European Network Management function.

Although the European horizontal flight efficiency target could not be met in 2009, improvements are notable. Total savings in European airspace due to improved en-route design and flight planning amounted to approximately 36 000 t of fuel in 2009 which corresponds to 120 000 t of CO2.

En-route airspace design is by far the most important driver of en-route extension. The improvement of flight efficiency is a pan-European issue which requires the development and the implementation of a Pan-European network improvement plan in cooperation with States and ANSPs.

5.1 Introduction 5.1.1 Building on the framework outlined in Chapter 4, this chapter analyses the operational

performance of en-route ANS (ATFM delays, flight efficiency, access to and use of airspace), and the Chapter 6 analyses operational performance in the TMA and at airports.

5.1.2 The analysis by area (en-route, TMA & airport) enables accountabilities and trade-offs to be viewed more clearly.

5.1.3 The environmental impact of flight efficiency, and trade offs between the different flight phases, are addressed in the Environmental assessment in Chapter 7. The economic impact of, and trade offs between, en route capacity (route charges), ATFM delays and en-route flight efficiency are addressed in the economic assessment in Chapter 9.

5.2 En-route ATFM delays 5.2.1 This section reviews Air Traffic Flow Management (ATFM) delays originating from en-

route capacity restrictions.

EUROPEAN ATFM EN-ROUTE DELAY TARGET

5.2.2 The European target for en-route ATFM delay is one minute per flight until 2010 (PC, 2007). This target refers to en-route ATFM delay in the summer period (May to October), all delay causes included (capacity, weather, etc.).

PRR 2009 Chapter 5: Operational En-route Performance

44

1.91.61.41.31.21.21.83.13.62.9 4.1 1.25.50

1

2

3

4

5

6

19

97

19

98

19

99

20

00

20

01

20

02

20

03

20

04

20

05

20

06

20

07

20

08

20

09

En-

rout

e A

TF

M d

elay

/ fli

ght

(min

.)

OTHER (Specialevent, military, etc.)

WEATHER

ATC Other (strike,equipment, etc.)

ATC Capacity &Staffing

PC Target

Target: 1.0min/flight

Actual: 1.2min/flight

Summer ATFM en-route delay target (May-Oct.)

source: EUROCONTROL/CFMU-10%

-5%

0%

5%

10%

traf

fic g

row

th (

%)

Traffic growth(Summer)

Figure 54: Summer ATFM en-route delay target

5.2.3 After a continuous increase between 2004 and 2008, a considerable reduction to 1.2 minutes of en-route ATFM delay per flight is visible in 2009. Even though the economic crisis reduced traffic levels far below planned ANSP capacity in 2009, the en-route summer ATFM delay target of one minute was not achieved. The reasons for this are explored in more detail in a later section of this chapter.

5.2.4 Figure 55 shows the evolution of effective capacity13 and air traffic demand between 1990 and 2009. Due to the traffic situation and cost containment measures at some ACCs and the adaptation of the available capacity to the reduced demand, the addition of ATC capacity has slowed down to only 0.4% in 2009.

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

199

0

199

1

199

2

199

3

199

4

199

5

199

6

199

7

199

8

199

9

200

0

200

1

200

2

200

3

200

4

200

5

200

6

200

7

200

8

200

9

201

0

201

1

201

2

201

3

km in

de

x 1

99

0=

10

0

0

1

2

3

4

5

6Traffic volume (km)

Effective Capacity

Traffic forecast

En-route ATFM delayper flight (summer)

Source : EUROCONTROLWidening

capacity gapClosing

capacity gapClosing

capacity gapWidening

capacity gap

Forecast AT

FM

de

lay in

min

ute

s pe

r fligh

t

Figure 55: Matching effective capacity and air traffic demand

13 Effective capacity is defined as the traffic which can be handled, given an optimum level of ATFM en-route delay of 1 minute per flight (cf. PRR 5 (2001), Annex 6).


45

5.2.5 Despite the drop in traffic and the uncertainties attached to the current air traffic forecasts, it is important to continue to close existing capacity gaps and to carefully plan capacity increases in order to accommodate future traffic demand and to keep en-route ATFM delays at optimum level as it takes usually several years for capacity enhancement initiatives to take effect.

5.2.6 Past experience shows cyclic behaviour in traffic growth. For some centres, the current traffic downturn could even be used as an opportunity to start preparing future capacity enhancement initiatives without having the pressure of continuous high traffic growth. Capacity planning and ACCs envisaging the implementation of new ATM systems are addressed in more detail in a later section of this chapter.

EUROPEAN ATFM EN-ROUTE PERFORMANCE

5.2.7 Figure 56 shows the evolution of en-route ATFM delays14 in Europe between 2006 and 2009.

5.2.8 The traditional indicator “delay per flight” is not easy to communicate and is therefore complemented by the “percentage of flights delayed by more than 15 minutes” (blue line in Figure 56) which is –together with the delay per flight hour - also one of the possible candidates for en-route capacity target setting in the SES II performance scheme. As can be seen in Figure 56, both indicators show a close correlation.

5.2.9 As already observed for the summer period (see Figure 54), ATFM en-route delays have decreased in 2009. Similarly, the share of flights delayed by en-route ATFM restrictions decreased compared to 2008. In 2009, 5.1% (7.8% in 2008) of flights were ATFM en-route delayed of which 2.6% (4.0% in 2008) were delayed by more than 15 minutes.

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 91

01

11

2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 91

01

11

2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 91

01

11

2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 91

01

11

2

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4

2006 2007 2008 2009

per

fligh

t (m

in.)

0%

1%

2%

3%

4%

5%

6%

7%

8%


WEATHER OTHER (Special event, military, etc.)

En-route delay target (Summer) Actual en-route ATFM delay (Summer)

En-route ATFM delayed flight (>15min.)

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

ATFM en-route delay YEARLY

Source: PRC Analysis ; CFMU

600

700

800

900

1,000

1,100

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 91

01

11

2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 91

01

11

2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 91

01

11

2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 91

01

11

2

2,006 2,007 2,008 2,009

fligh

ts (

'000

)

Traffic

6

7

8

9

10

11

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

fligh

ts (

mill

ion)

Figure 56: Evolution of en-route ATFM delays (2006-2009)

5.2.10 En-route ATFM delays show seasonal variations, peaking during summer when traffic demand is generally highest. The comparatively high level of en-route ATFM delay in

14 Note that annual delay figures in Figure 54 and Figure 56 are not comparable. Figure 56 shows average en route ATFM delays for the full year, while Figure 54 shows en route ATFM delays for the summer period only.


46

July 2009 was to a large extent driven by ATC Capacity & Staffing related delays on the South East Axis (Austria, Croatia, Greece, Cyprus), but also in Spain, Poland and Germany.

5.2.11 ATC Capacity and Staffing related issues (83%) continue to be the main drivers of en-route ATFM delays, followed by “weather” (11%). “Other” reasons account for 6%, of which 4% are ATM-related (strike, equipment, etc.).

MOST ATFM EN-ROUTE DELAY GENERATING ACCS

5.2.12 This section analyses delay performance at local level (ACC). The one-minute per flight delay target at European level cannot be applied to individual ACCs as a flight crosses approximately three ACCs on average (otherwise flights are counted three times).

5.2.13 Consequently, the performance at ACC level is assessed in line with the capacity objective set out in the ATM 2000+ Strategy [Ref. 18] “to provide sufficient capacity to accommodate demand in typical busy hour periods without imposing significant operational, economic or environmental penalties under normal conditions.”

5.2.14 While it is normal that capacity issues and significant delays occur on some days, ACCs should not generate high delays on a regular basis. This is why delay performance at ACC level is assessed in terms of the number of days with large en-route ATFM delay (>1 minute per flight). Thresholds are set at 30 days (congested) and 100 days (highly congested).

18

13

10

2 2

64

7

3

8

11

13

5 6

10

12 9 14 7

7

24

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

Congested (>30 days with average en-route delay >1 min.)

Highly congested (>100 days with average en-route delay >1 min.)

Source: EUROCONTROL

Nr. of ACCs

Most congested ACCs in 2009

Days en-route ATFM

>1 min.

% of flights delayed >15 min.

En-route delay ('000)

% of total en-route

delay

En-route delay /flight

(min.)

Traffic growth (%)

Warszawa 225 5.0% 900 10.1% 1.7 -8.0%Nicosia 193 6.5% 621 7.0% 2.3 -1.7%Wien 170 3.4% 858 9.7% 1.2 -6.5%Madrid 96 2.1% 710 8.0% 0.7 -9.0%Zurich 83 1.7% 445 5.0% 0.6 -6.9%Rhein/ Karlsruhe 78 1.7% 813 9.1% 0.6 -6.9%Langen 74 1.8% 774 8.7% 0.6 -6.3%Zagreb 70 2.1% 280 3.1% 0.7 2.1%Athinai+ Macedonia 54 2.8% 714 8.0% 1.2 -0.6%Canarias 46 2.9% 420 4.7% 1.6 -13.3%

Figure 57: Most en-route ATFM delay generating ACCs

5.2.15 Most European ACCs provided sufficient capacity in 2009. As shown in Figure 57, the number of ACCs with more than 30 days with an average ATFM en-route delay per flight larger than 1 minute decreased from 14 to 10 in 2009. Three of those ACCs are considered to have a significant capacity gap. In 2009, those 10 ACCs controlled 20% of total flight hours in Europe but accounted for 74% of total en-route ATFM delays.

5.2.16 A number of the ACCs highlighted in Figure 57 have been continuously in the list of most en-route ATFM delay generating ACCs since 2005. This is in particular the case for Warsaw, Nicosia, Madrid, Zurich and Zagreb. This illustrates the need for all parties concerned to resolve the capacity issues.


47

5.2.17 Compared to 2006 when the level of traffic was similar to 2009, en-route ATFM delay per flight was lower in 2009 but notably more concentrated in fewer ACCs. The six most congested ACCs (out of 69) account for 50% of all en-route ATFM delay in 2009.

5.2.18 The cumulative distribution of en-route ATFM delay per sector for 2006 and 2009 in Figure 58 further underlines the concentration of en-route ATFM delays in a few local bottlenecks in 2009.

5.2.19 In 2009, half of the total en-route ATFM delay originates from only 4% of sectors. Cost of delays from these 30 sectors alone is estimated to be in the order of €300M.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

1

31

61

91

12

1

15

1

18

1

21

1

24

1

27

1

30

1

33

1

36

1

39

1

Number of en-route sectors

% o

f en

-rou

te A

TF

M d

elay

2006

2009

Source: CFMU

Figure 58: Cumulative distribution of en-route ATFM delays by sector

UNDERLYING DRIVERS

5.2.20 Figure 59 provides an indication of the underlying en-route ATFM delay causes as reported by the flow managers. The en-route ATFM delay is shown in terms of delay per flight (top of Figure 59) and delay per controlled flight hour (bottom of Figure 59).

0

1

2

3

4

20

07

20

08

20

09

20

07

20

08

20

09

20

07

20

08

20

09

20

07

20

08

20

09

20

07

20

08

20

09

20

07

20

08

20

09

20

07

20

08

20

09

20

07

20

08

20

09

20

07

20

08

20

09

20

07

20

08

20

09

Warszawa Nicosia Wien Madrid Zurich Rhein/Karlsruhe

Langen Zagreb Athinai+Macedonia

Canarias

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%


WEATHER OTHER (Special event, military, etc.)

% of flights delayed by more than 15 min.

Source: PRC Analysis/ CFMU

En-

rout

e A

TF

M d

elay

pe

r fli

ght

012345678

20

07

20

08

20

09

20

07

20

08

20

09

20

07

20

08

20

09

20

07

20

08

20

09

20

07

20

08

20

09

20

07

20

08

20

09

20

07

20

08

20

09

20

07

20

08

20

09

20

07

20

08

20

09

20

07

20

08

20

09

Warszawa Nicosia Wien Madrid Zurich Rhein/Karlsruhe

Langen Zagreb Athinai+Macedonia

Canarias

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%% of flights delayed by more than 15 min.

En-

rout

e A

TF

M d

elay

pe

r fli

ght

hour

con

trol

led

Delay per flight hour controlled

Delay per flight

Figure 59: ATFM en-route delay drivers (most delay generating ACCs)

5.2.21 Similar to the distribution in Figure 56, ATC capacity & staffing related issues are by far the main cause of en-route ATFM restrictions.


48

5.2.22 Apart from Langen, the Canarias, and Madrid all ACCs show a year on year improvement between 2008 and 2009. Nevertheless, in some cases the significant traffic decrease did not result in a similar delay decrease (Warsaw, Vienna, Rhein/Karlsruhe, etc.).

5.2.23 Contrary to most other ACCs, the traffic peak in the Canarias is in winter. More than 90% of the annual en-route ATFM delay was generated in November and December and the delay is therefore not included in the present European en-route ATFM target which only covers summer.

5.2.24 While the summer en-route ATFM target proved to be an effective means for the mitigation of delays during the most challenging period of the year, the binding EU-wide capacity targets to be set within the SES performance scheme need to consider performance throughout the entire year.

5.2.25 Figure 60 shows the geographical distribution of the most en-route ATFM delay generating ACCs in 2008 and 2009. As was the case in 2008, the majority of the most delay-generating ACCs are outside the European Core Area.

5.2.26 Some 10% of total en-route ATFM delay originates from Warsaw ACC, 8% from Madrid ACC and the South-east axis stretching from Austria via Croatia, Greece and Cyprus accounted for some 28% of total en-route delay. Finally, the German ACCs Rhein/Karlsruhe and Langen accounted for some 18% of total en-route delays in 2009.

5.2.27 It is important also to note that all the ACCs in UK, France, Italy, Czech Republic, Portugal, etc. had a very low level of en-route delays in 2009 continuing the improvements made in the previous years or maintaining a constant good performance.

LIS

CAN

ANK

SCO

SHA

ROM

MAD

STO

BRE

BOD

WARLON

ISTBAR

TAM

BUC

MAA

SIM

KIE

ATH+MAK

MAR

MAL

MAL

STA

NIC

BOR

RHE

SEV

BRI

KHA

ROV

COP

LVO

BEOZAG

OSL

VIL

TAL

WIE

SOF

PRA

VAR

REI

RIG

PAD

BUDODEMUN

TIR

PARCHIBRAT

ZURGEN

SKO

LJU

BREM

LAN

AMS

BRU

MANDUB

LON TC

PAL

Lower Airspace

Lower Airspace

Days with en-route delay > 1min/flight<= 30 days> 30 days> 100 days

2008

LIS

CAN

ANK

SCO

SHA

ROM

MAD

STO

BRE

BOD

WARLON

ISTBAR

TAM

BUC

MAA

SIM

KIE

ATH+MAK

MAR

MAL

STA

MAL

NIC

BOR

RHE

SEV

BRI

KHA

ROV

COP

SOF

LVO

BEOZAG

OSL

VIL

TAL

WIE

PRAREI

RIG

PAD

BUDODEMUN

TIR

PARCHIBRAT

ZUR YERGEN

SKO

LJU

BREM

LAN

AMS

BRU

MANDUB

LON TC

PAL

Lower Airspace

Lower Airspace

Days with en-route delay > 1min/flight<= 30 days> 30 days> 100 days

2009

Figure 60: Geographical distribution of most delay-generating ACCs

5.2.28 The responsibility to plan and to deliver the right level of capacity lies with ANSPs. EUROCONTROL supports the European medium term capacity planning with a number of tools, data sets and traffic scenarios. The resulting capacity plans are then published in the Network Operations Plan (NOP). The next section compares actual and planned performance for the most constraining ACCs in order to better understand the reasons for the observed en-route capacity shortfalls.

ACC CAPACITY PLANNING

5.2.29 To ensure the required delivery of en-route capacity in the medium-term, capacity plans are developed by the ANSPs for each ACC. Figure 61 compares actual traffic demand


49

and ATFM delays to the forecast levels in the Medium Term Capacity Plan15 for the 10 most en-route delay generating ACCs in 2009.

5.2.30 Zagreb is the only ACC which reported an increase in traffic which was not foreseen by the traffic forecast. In all other ACCs traffic decrease in summer was even higher than initially forecast.

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

min

ute

s/ f

lig

ht

Actual delay(Summer)

Delay forecast

-16%

-14%

-12%

-10%

-8%

-6%

-4%

-2%

0%

2%

4%

Wa

rsza

wa

Nic

os

ia

Wie

n

Ma

dri

d

Zu

ric

h

Rh

ein

/K

arl

sru

he

La

ng

en

Za

gre

b

Ath

ina

i+M

ac

ed

on

ia

Ca

na

ria

s

tra

ffic

gro

wth

(%

)Actual traffic(Summer)

Traffic forecast

Sources: NOP, CFMU

Traffic growthActual and forecast(SUMMER)

ATFM en-route delayActual and forecast(SUMMER)

Figure 61: Accuracy of capacity planning (Summer 2009)

5.2.31 Although traffic was lower than forecast, Warsaw, Nicosia, Zurich, Langen, and Athinai/Macedonia performed worse than anticipated, but for different reasons. Nicosia, Langen, Athens and Makedonia ACCs did not fulfil the commitments made in the capacity plan in terms of configurations and sector opening schemes.

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

Elementary Sectors Combined Sectors source : EUROCONTROL/CFMU

Top 25 most delay generating en-route sectors

mill

ion

min

. of

en-

rout

e de

lay

0 200 400 600

WARSAW

LANGEN

ATHINAI

CYPRUS

ZURICH

MADRID

KARLSRUHE

MAKEDONIA

WIEN

PRAHA

ZAGREB

En-route ATFM delay (' 000 min.)

Summer 2009

Figure 62: ATFM delays due to combined/elementary sectors

15 Forecast source: STATFOR medium-term forecast.


50

5.2.32 Figure 62 shows the en-route ATFM delays in the top 25 most delay generating en-route ACCs by sector type in summer. The ATFM en-route delays originating from collapsed sectors show a worrying increase between 2007 and 2009.

5.2.33 Zurich, Langen and Warsaw show en-route ATFM delay due to elementary sectors. This indicates structural limitations to be addressed to avoid excessive delays when traffic growth resumes.

5.2.34 At all other ACCs, shortcomings in the planning (recruitment, productivity projections, etc.) and deployment (sector opening times, ATCO rating, rostering, overtime regulation, etc.) of staff appear to be the main reason for the observed high level of en-route ATFM delays.

Elementary/ collapsed sectors:

The airspace is divided into elementary sectors which can be merged into larger (collapsed) sectors. Subject to workload and staff availability, the sector configurations are adjusted to traffic demand.

En-route capacity shortfalls may result from structural limitations (i.e. inability to further split sectors to accommodate the demand) or staffing limitations (i.e. inability deploy maximum configurations due to staff availability).

5.2.35 Whereas the information on ANSPs capacity planning shared at European level enables to monitor a number of technical and operational details (software upgrades, route changes, etc.), information on staffing is limited. However, staff availability, flexible deployment of staff and flexible sector opening schemes are key to efficiently meeting future capacity requirements.

5.2.36 Additionally to the day-to-day management, the training of staff in preparation of a system upgrade may result in a temporary staff shortage and delays in the actual implementation phase. Part of the delay at Rhein/ Karlsruhe is for example due to staff training in preparation of the implementation of the VAFORIT system planned for 2010.

5.2.37 Figure 63 shows where major ATM system upgrades are planned between 2010 and 2013 (see also Figure 133: on page 117). Those ATM system upgrades pose a considerable challenge as they are likely to result in a temporary reduction of capacity.

Figure 63: ACC plans to implement new ATM systems (2010-13)


51

5.2.38 Notwithstanding the unprecedented drop in traffic and the resulting need to contain cost, adequate and pro-active capacity planning at local and ATM network level is essential to be able to cope with future traffic demand while managing all the planned ATM system upgrades without excessive en-route ATFM delays.

5.2.39 In this context, the setting of binding capacity performance targets as part of the SES performance scheme will need to be supported by locally drawn up performance plans and a reinforced network management function to be established within the Single European Sky initiative.

5.3 En-route Flight Efficiency 5.3.1 Deviations from the optimum trajectory generate additional flight time, fuel burn and

costs to airspace users. This section reviews en-route flight efficiency. Flight efficiency in terminal control areas (TMA) and at main airports is addressed in Chapter 6.

5.3.2 En-route flight efficiency has a horizontal (distance) and a vertical (altitude) component. The focus of this section is on horizontal en-route flight efficiency, which is in general of higher economic and environmental importance than the vertical component across Europe as a whole. The additional fuel burn due to en-route flight inefficiencies (horizontal and vertical) has an environmental impact, which is addressed in more detail in the environmental assessment in Chapter 7 of this report.

5.3.3 The horizontal en-route flight efficiency indicator takes a single flight perspective. It relates observed performance to the great circle distance, which is an ideal (and unachievable) situation where each aircraft would be alone in the system and not be subject to any constraints. In high density areas, flow-separation is essential for safety and capacity reasons with a consequent impact on flight efficiency.

5.3.4 It should be noted that there might be a difference between the great circle distance used for the calculation of the horizontal flight efficiency and the economic preferences of airspace users which may be influenced by factors such as wind, route charges, and congested airspace (see also Chapter 7).

Horizontal flight efficiency:

The KPI for horizontal en-route flight efficiency is En-route extension. En-route extension is defined as the difference between the length of the actual trajectory (A) and the Great Circle Distance (G) between the departure and arrival terminal areas (radius of 30 NM around airports). Where a flight departs or arrives outside Europe, only that part inside European airspace is considered. En-route extension can be further broken down into:

direct route extension which is the difference between the actual flown route (A) and the direct course (D); and,

the TMA interface which is the difference between the direct course (D) and the great circle distance (G).

30 NM

Airport A

Airport B

GD

A En-route extension

Actual route

(A)

Great Circle

(G)

Direct Course

(D)

Direct route extension

TMA interface

5.3.5 Consequently, the aim is not the unachievable target of direct routing for all flights at any time, but to achieve an acceptable balance between flight efficiency and capacity requirements while respecting safety standards. These trade-offs are addressed in more detail in the Economic Assessment in Chapter 9.


52

EUROPEAN HORIZONTAL FLIGHT EFFICIENCY TARGET

5.3.6 In May 2007, the Provisional Council of EUROCONTROL adopted the horizontal flight efficiency target of a reduction of the average route extension per flight by two kilometres per annum until 2010.

5.3.7 While the European flight efficiency target could not be achieved thus far, significant focus has been put on initiatives to improve the European airspace design and network management.

48.7 km 48.2 km 48.9 km 48.8 km

0

20

40

60

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

rout

e ex

ten

sio

n (

km/fl

igh

t)

Impact of CFMUsoftware change

Direct en-routeextension

TMA Interface

Agreed target

- 2 km per flight (agreed target)

800820840860880900

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

km/fl

igh

t

Great circledistance

Source: PRC Analysis/CFMU

49.5 km

Figure 64: Horizontal flight efficiency target

5.3.8 In 2009, route extension showed a slight increase compared to 2008 which is predominantly the result of a change in the algorithm used for the calculation of the actual CFMU flight profile (A) as of May 2009. PRC analysis suggests that the algorithm change resulted in an artificial increase of the actual flight distance (A) by 1.9km per flight (see Figure 64) which masks improvements to the route network in 2009. The analysis in this chapter has been adjusted accordingly to enable time series analyses.

5.3.9 If this effect is taken into account, average en-route extension was 47.6 km per flight in 2009 which is a year on year improvement of 1.2 km.

CFMU flight profile:

The CFMU flight profile is based on flight plan information which is updated with surveillance data provided by the ANSPs and position report data provided by aircraft operators.

The CFMU only updates flight profiles if the position received deviates horizontally by more than 20 NM from the current estimated trajectory. Although the CFMU flight profile is not the exact replication of the actual flown profile, it is a close approximation and work is carried out to further improve the data and the algorithms used for the calculation.

5.3.10 The improvement needs to be seen together with the further increase of the average great circle distance operated in the European airspace, as shown in Figure 64. It means that the proportion of medium/long haul flights operated by aircraft operators in Europe is constantly increasing and the proportion of short-haul flights is decreasing.

5.3.11 While this is still far from the target, it is a substantial improvement representing a total saving of approximately 36 000 t of fuel in 2009 which corresponds to 120 000 t of CO2.


53

These improvements are in line with the estimations made by EUROCONTROL on the implementation of the European ATS Route Network Version 6.

5.3.12 With a view to the preparation of targets on flight efficiency within the SES performance scheme the following lessons can be learned from past experience. As suggested in the PRC Discussion paper on the implementation of the SES II Performance Scheme [Ref.13], the indicator to be used for target setting should:

be based on the most accurate data available to ensure a stable and continuous basis for the analysis and to avoid performance changes related to data quality; and,

consider changes in average flight length and therefore related route extension to average flight distance.

EUROPEAN EN-ROUTE FLIGHT EFFICIENCY PERFORMANCE

5.3.13 In response to the high jet fuel price in 2008, IATA, EUROCONTROL and CANSO jointly developed the Flight Efficiency Plan [Ref. 19] which aims at:

enhancing European en-route airspace design through annual improvements of European ATS route network including the implementation of additional CDRs for main traffic flows, improvements for the most penalising city pairs and the support of free route initiatives;

improving airspace utilisation and route network availability including support to aircraft operators, to improve flight plans and the use of civil military airspace and to reduce the number of RADs where possible;

RAD & CDRs

The Route Availability Document (RAD) collects restrictions that govern and limit the use of the route network. RAD restrictions contribute to the safety and capacity by ensuring that the ATCO’s workload is not impacted by traffic flying unusual routes.

Conditional Routes (CDRs) are non-permanent routes of the route network usually established through shared airspace (civil/military) or to address specific ATC conditions (sectorisation, etc.). They can be planned and used under specific conditions.

efficient TMA design and utilisation, through the implementation of advance navigation capabilities, and CDAs; and,

Optimising airport operations, through Airport Collaborative Decision Making.

5.3.14 The average route extension in 2009 (compared to great circle distance) was 47.6 km (5.4%), of which 32.3 km (3.7%) is attributable to the efficiency of the en-route network and 15.3 km (1.7%) to the interfaces with the TMAs, as outlined in Figure 65.

En-route extension

922 km

890 km

874 km

Actual route(A)

Great Circle(G)

Direct Course(D)


47.6 5.4%

3.7%

1.7%TMA interface

32.3

15.3

4.1%

4.1%

4.0%

4.0%

3.9%

3.7%

6.0% 5.9% 5.8% 5.8% 5.6% 5.4%

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

TMA interface Direct route extension

Flight distance compared to great circle

Figure 65: En-route flight efficiency indicator


54

5.3.15 Horizontal en-route flight efficiency has been measured since 2004 and a target was set by the Provisional Council in 2006. Although the target has not been met, the results in 2009 show improvement in all 3 components of en-route flight efficiency and confirm the trend initiated in 2008. This demonstrates that the establishment of clear performance measures and targets is a powerful instrument in driving the performance of the European system.

5.3.16 As shown in Figure 66, for a better understanding of the various areas where ANS has an impact, direct route extension is broken down into three components: (1) en-route airspace design, (2) route utilisation and (3) ATC routing.


Actual route(A)

Shortest Route(S)

Filed Route(F)

ATC routing

Route utilisation

En-route design

Direct Course(D)

-0.8%

0.6%

3.9%

- 6.9 km

+ 5.0 km

+ 34.2 km

3.7%

+ 32.3 km

Flight distance compared to direct course (D)

4.1

%

4.1

%

4.0

%

4.0

%

3.9

%

3.7

%

4.9

%

4.8

%

4.8

%

4.8

%

4.6

%

4.5

%

4.1

%

4.1

%

4.1

%

4.1

%

4.0

%

3.9

%

3.0%3.2%3.4%3.6%3.8%4.0%4.2%4.4%4.6%4.8%5.0%

20

04

20

05

20

06

20

07

20

08

20

09

Actual vs. direct courseFiled vs. direct courseShortest planned vs. direct course

Figure 66: Direct route extension by components

EN-ROUTE ROUTE DESIGN

5.3.17 The en-route design component relates the shortest available route (S) to the direct course (D). As can be seen in Figure 66, it is by far the most important driver of horizontal en-route extension (3.9% in 2009).

5.3.18 The improvement of the route network is a Pan-European issue as the improvement of flight efficiency within individual States/FAB may not deliver the desired objective, especially if the airspace is comparatively small and the interface between States/FAB is not addressed properly.

5.3.19 For this reason, one of the European Union wide performance targets within the SES II performance scheme should be the development of an improvement plan for the Pan-European network in collaboration with States/FABs (see also environmental assessment in Chapter 7).

5.3.20 There is also scope for improving flight efficiency at network, State or local level through the development and deployment of new concepts. Initiatives aimed at free route selection (Sweden, Portugal, and Ireland) or the stepped deployment of the European night direct routes network (FABEC, BLUEMED – Italy Greece, Spain, UK, Austria, Slovenia) further help improving flight efficiency within States and within the network once they are operational (Figure 67).

5.3.21 “Free Route” initiatives will continue to evolve in the coming years with further projects in Finland, Norway, MUAC, Serbia plus other projects in the context of the FABs. The


55

further deployment of the European night direct routes network will continue in the context of FABEC, BLUEMED, FABCE, DANUBE. The efforts for network harmonisation of the free routes initiatives must be fully supported.

LISBOAFIR/UIR

Portugal > FL245- May 2009

More direct Night route network Ireland/UK/Maastricht/Germany

Figure 67: Examples of national and local flight efficiency initiatives

5.3.22 Figure 68 shows the improvement in flight efficiency in Portuguese airspace following the implementation of free route selection above FL 245 in May 2009.

5.3.23 A year on year comparison for June shows an improvement of 0.6% for 2009 which is a considerable reduction of en-route extension.

0.0%

0.2%

0.4%

0.6%

0.8%

1.0%

1.2%

1.4%

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

2009 Source: PRC analysis

Improved flight efficiency in Portugal(fight efficiency within State)

Figure 68: free route selection - Portugal

5.3.24 The national and regional impact on horizontal flight efficiency is addressed in more detail in section 5.4 of this chapter.

ROUTE UTILISATION

5.3.25 The route utilisation component addresses flight planning. It relates the filed route (F) to the shortest available route (S) and accounts for 0.6% of the distance flown in 2009 (see Figure 66). Compared to last year, route utilisation improved by approximately 0.4 km per flight which corresponds to a total saving of 3.4 million km in 2009.

5.3.26 There are several reasons as to why there is a difference between the shortest plannable route and the route filed by aircraft operators:

the shortest route might only be temporarily available due to airspace restrictions;

airspace users may file longer routes due to wind effects, lower route charges or to avoid ATFM restrictions and;

airspace users might simply not be aware of the shortest available route.


56

5.3.27 As outlined in 5.3.13, the Flight Efficiency Plan [Ref. 19] aims at improving airspace utilisation and route network availability.

5.3.28 Considerable savings can be achieved by improving the user routing16 and by further reducing the number and duration of RAD restrictions, particularly during night times.

5.3.29 Improvements in route utilisation will require the full collaboration of all involved parties.

ATC ROUTING

5.3.30 The ATC routing component addresses tactical changes in routing in the en-route phase given by air traffic controllers and therefore relates the actual flown routes (A) to the routes filed by the airspace users (F).

5.3.31 Similar to 2008, more direct ATC routings are estimated to reduce the flight distance by 0.8% on average in 2009 (see Figure 66). Frequently, ATC shortcuts given on a tactical basis are usually associated with the flexible use of airspace.

5.4 National and Regional Impact on horizontal flight efficiency 5.4.1 Figure 69 provides indicators of route extension per Functional Airspace Block (FAB). It

furthermore identifies route extension due to internal State airspace design issues (dark blue), interfaces across States within the FAB (blue) and interfaces with other FABs (yellow). More details can be found in a specific PRR report [Ref.11].

Additional en-route distance per FAB 2009

3.3%

2.9%

2.9%

1.0%

2.3%

1.0%

1.3%

1.2%

0.8%

1.0%

0.8%

1.4%

0.8%

1.6%

1.0%

4.8%

4.1%

4.0%

3.3%

3.4%

3.0%

2.4%

2.0%

1.9%

1.2% 0.7%

0.5%

0.0% 2.0% 4.0% 6.0%

FAB EC

Blue Med

UK-Ireland

FAB CE

SW Portugal-Spain

Danube

Baltic

NUAC

NEFAB

Routing within state

State interfaces within FAB

FAB interfaces

European average

(excluding TMA interface)

Source: PRC Analysis/ CFMU

3.9%

Additional en-route distance / Great Circle Distance

24.7%

10.7%

64.5%

Figure 69: Additional en-route distance per FAB in 2009

5.4.2 A further breakdown of the flight efficiency indicators by States is given in Figure 70. It shows that especially for smaller States a large proportion of the horizontal en-route extension is due to the interface with adjacent States (i.e. FYROM) which may not always be under the control of that State. A detailed list of the top 50 most constraining points in Europe can be found in Annex VI.

16 It should be noted that, in many cases, the shortest route even if not planned is already given on a tactical basis by Air Traffic Control. Improvements in “route utilisation” could reduce potential improvements in “ATC Routing”.


57

5.4.3 Particularly with a view to the setting of binding performance targets within the SES performance scheme it is important to note that the use of national flight efficiency targets is influenced by the dependency of the route structure on adjacent States. It furthermore highlights the importance of the development of a Pan-European network improvement plan in collaboration with States/FABs.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Within State TMA interface State Interface

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

Fra

nce

Ger

man

y

UK

Italy

Spa

in

Tur

key

Gre

ece

Bel

gium

Sw

itzer

land

Net

herla

nds

Aus

tria

Pol

and

Sw

eden

Rom

ania

Cze

ch

Cyp

rus

Ser

bia

&

Ukr

aine

Irel

and

Bul

garia

Hun

gary

Den

mar

k

Por

tuga

l

Nor

way

Cro

atia

Can

ary

Slo

vak

FY

RO

M

Fin

land

Bos

nia-

Slo

veni

a

Alb

ania

Mal

ta

Mol

dova

Additional distance/Great Circle distance (%)

Source: PRC Analysis

Additional distance (million kilometres)

Figure 70: Additional en-route distance per State in 2009

5.5 Access to and use of shared airspace

5.5.1 Access is one of the ICAO key performance areas. This section focuses on access to shared airspace by military and civil users.

5.5.2 In order to meet the increasing needs of both stakeholders in terms of volume and time, a close civil/military co-operation and co-ordination across all ATM-related activities is key to maximising the use of scarce airspace.

Shared airspace

“Shared” is AMC17 manageable Special Use Airspace (SUA) that consists of individual airspace volumes and opening times and can be used alternatively for civil traffic and military activities. It is no longer designated as either military or civil airspace, but considered as one continuum and used flexibly on a day-to-day basis.

5.5.3 From a civil point of view, the benefit of access to shared airspace is improved en-route flight efficiency (see previous section). From a military viewpoint, access to shared airspace enables military training programmes. The shared airspace should be located in proximity to airbases in order to optimise transit times to the training areas.

5.5.4 The PRC report “Evaluation of Civil/Military airspace utilisation” in 2007 [Ref. 20] raised two main points:

for States to increase their commitment to design and implement appropriate routes and sector configurations to improve the utilisation of shared airspace particularly during weekends, and

to establish a performance measurement system for the utilisation shared airspace.

17 Airspace Management Cell.


58

5.5.5 In order to facilitate civil/military coordination and to support a more consistent cross-border implementation of the flexible use of airspace (FUA) planning process, EUROCONTROL has launched a number of initiatives such as LARA18, CIMACT19 and PRISMIL.20

5.5.6 Of particular relevance is the need to ensure that airspace is used when made available particularly when the shared airspace is temporarily segregated either for military or civil airspace users.

5.5.7 Although there is virtually no military activity during weekends, only a small reduction of direct route extension can be observed, as shown in Figure 71.

5.5.8 Although a gradual improvement of direct route extension is visible between 2004 and 2009, the gap between week and weekend remains stable.

0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3%

3.0%

3.5%

4.0%

4.5%

5.0%

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009D

ire

ct r

ou

te e

xte

nsi

on

Week Days Week End

Figure 71: Direct route extension -week/weekend

5.5.9 In terms of performance measurement there was further progress in 2009 and PRISMIL KPIs are now available for Belgium, France and Germany.

5.5.10 Figure 72 shows performance indicators for Belgium, France, and Germany collected within PRISMIL to help evaluate and improve the use of shared airspace. The indicators relate to the use of shared airspace above flight level 200 in 2009.

56%63%

68%

15%

21% 21%28%

3%20%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Bel

gium

Fra

nce

Ger

man

y

Released after start ofbooked time

Released with less than 3hours notice before start ofbooking

Released with more than 3hours notice before start ofbooking

% of time used whenallocated

source : PRISMIL

89%76%

84%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Bel

gium

Fra

nce

Ger

man

yUse of reserved SUA time vs.

release of reservationTime spent in SUA vs.

Total mission time

Indicators on the use of shared airspace (2009)(flight level 200 and above)

Figure 72: Performance indicators on access to shared airspace

18 Local And sub-Regional Airspace management support system. 19 Civil-Military ATM/ Air defence Coordination Tool. 20 The Pan-European Repository of Information Supporting Civil-Military Key Performance Indicators (PRISMIL).

programme was launched in June 2006 to develop and implement harmonised automated data collection in support of civil- military KPIs


59

5.5.11 They indicate that:

the effective use of the time allocated to the military was highest in Germany (68%), followed by France (63%) and Belgium (56%);

of the remaining time when airspace was booked but not used by the military, 20% of the reserved time was released for civil use with at least 3 hours notice in Belgium, followed by France (15%) and Germany (3%);

the remaining time was released with less than 3 hours notice before the start of the booked time;

mission effectiveness was highest in Belgium in 2009. On average, 89% of the total mission time was spent for training and 11% for the transit between the airspace and the shared airspace, which is a high level of mission effectiveness.

5.5.12 Implementation of indicators by more States and sharing of best practice should be further encouraged. Progress still needs to be made both in developing and offering routes through shared airspace and ensuring that these routes are effectively used by civil users, especially during weekends when military activity is minimal.

5.5.13 With a view to the start of the SES performance scheme in 2012, more work is required to ensure that all parameters necessary for the evaluation of the effective use of shared airspace are available.

5.6 Conclusions 5.6.1 Although ATFM en-route delay decreased from 1.9 to 1.2 minutes per flight in summer

2009, the en-route delay target of 1 minute per flight was not met in 2009, notwithstanding the significant decline in traffic which reduced traffic levels far below planned ANSP capacity in 2009.

5.6.2 For the full year, the percentage of flights delayed by more than 15 minutes due to en-route ATFM restriction decreased from 4.0% in 2008 to 2.6% in 2009.

5.6.3 While most European ACCs provided sufficient capacity, overall en-route ATFM delay did not decrease in line with traffic, which was due to only a limited number of ACCs. The six most congested ACCs (out of 71) accounted for 50% of all en-route ATFM delay in 2009.

5.6.4 En-route ATFM delays originated mainly from Warsaw ACC (10%), Madrid ACC (8%) and the South-east axis stretching from Austria via Croatia, Greece and Cyprus (28%). The German ACCs Rhein/Karlsruhe and Langen together accounted for some 18% of total en-route delays in 2009.

5.6.5 Shortcomings in the planning and deployment of staff appear to be the main drivers of en-route ATFM delays at the most congested ACCs. The planning and management of capacity is the core responsibility of ANSPs. At present, there is limited information for the review of capacity plans and their execution, e.g. staff availability.

5.6.6 The unprecedented drop in traffic helped to close existing capacity gaps. It is important to continue to close existing capacity gaps, to match capacity plans with forecast demand and to have some flexibility in accommodating unforeseen changes in traffic.

5.6.7 In view of the staffing issues and the high number of planned ATM system upgrades over the next three years, an adequate and pro-active capacity planning at local and ATM network level is essential to make sure that delay targets are met. The network management function has an important role to play.


60

5.6.8 The SES II package, especially capacity target setting and the network management function, is expected to improve the capacity planning process at local and network levels.

5.6.9 Even though the European horizontal en-route flight efficiency target could not be met in 2009, improvements are notable. Total savings in European airspace due to improved en-route design and flight planning amounted to approximately 36 000 t of fuel in 2009 which corresponds to 120 000 t of CO2.

5.6.10 En-route airspace design is by far the most important driver of en-route extension. The improvement of flight efficiency is a pan-European issue which requires the development and the implementation of a Pan-European network improvement plan in cooperation with States and ANSPs.

5.6.11 Implementation of indicators by more States and sharing of best practice should be further encouraged. Progress still needs to be made both in developing and offering routes through shared airspace and ensuring that these routes are effectively used by civil users, especially during weekends when military activity is minimal.

5.6.12 With a view to the start of the SES performance scheme in 2012, more work is required to ensure that all parameters necessary for the evaluation of the effective use of shared airspace are available.

Chapter 6: ANS Performance at main Airports

PRR 2009 Chapter 6: ANS performance at main airports

61

6 ANS performance at main airports


There have been some improvements in ANS performance at airports in 2009.

The gathering of different data sets (airlines, CFMU, airport operators) and their continuous validation are necessary conditions for enhancing the accuracy of ANS performance review at airports. The PRC is developing these data through the ATMAP process.

Air Navigation Services can adequately sustain the declared airport capacity in daily operations during favourable conditions. ANS performance at airports is more affected by weather conditions than traffic changes. Current work should continue to assess weather conditions and its impact on airport performance.

Wind is above all the most impacting weather phenomena on airport operations. ATFM delays due to wind represent the vast majority of ATFM weather delays in Istanbul and Heathrow.

Regulatory authorities, ANSPs and ATM R&D should deliver on-time operational concepts, systems and procedures to improve ANS performance during unfavourable wind conditions.

The progress in the implementation of airport CDM is not fast enough and should be strongly encouraged.

6.1 Introduction 6.1.1 This chapter reviews the ANS-related

performance at the top 20 European airports in terms of IFR aircraft movements in 2009. These airports are coordinated or facilitated in accordance with the European Council Regulation 95/1993 [Ref. 21] including subsequent modifications and the IATA Scheduling Manual [Ref. 22].

6.1.2 The review is based on the first version of the performance measurement framework published in the report “ATMAP performance framework” [Ref. 23]. This was developed in consultation with some of the main ANS providers, airlines and airport operators in Europe.

6.1.3 The analysis presented in this chapter is based on information currently available within EUROCONTROL. When flight data from airport operators could be used, the accuracy of the analysis could be enhanced. Work is ongoing within the ATMAP project to improve the quality and the completeness of the information collected and to further validate and refine the performance indicators. A more refined version of the ATMAP performance framework will be published in Spring 2011.

6.1.4 ANS-related performance at airports is the result of complex activities conducted by numerous actors (Airport operator, Slot coordinator, local ATC provider, CFMU, Airlines, Ground handlers, and other service providers located at the airport). ANS-related performance is therefore only

Airport Declared capacity It is the number of aircraft movements per unit of time (usually one hour) that an airport could accept. The airport declared capacity is the output of the capacity declaration which is a process conducted in accordance with IATA scheduling manual and EC Regulation 95/93 and used to set a limit on the number of movements per hour or fraction thereof. The airport declared capacity could be quite complex and may contain various rolling parameters to control the concentration of demand.

Peak Service Rate

The “operational capacity” is set according to the specific situation of the day or hours of operations. The operational capacity cannot be measured directly, but could be inferred by the “service rate”. Peak Service Rate is the 1% percentile of the average number of movements per rolling hours during the peak month of the year in busiest periods.

Unimpeded and additional time.

The unimpeded time represents the duration of unconstrained flights from point A to point B as a reference. The additional time is the duration that is supplementary to the unimpeded time. From a single flight perspective the additional time is a delay which is generated by the need to ensure traffic queuing at the runway and by system inefficiencies. Additional times are

PRR 2009 62 Chapter 6: ANS performance at main airports

partially in the hands of ANS providers.

6.1.5 The PRC focuses its activity on measuring how well ANS uses the available capacity at airports. The PRC does not evaluate requirements to expand airport capacity (e.g. through new infrastructure such as additional runways or terminals). It is acknowledged that the lack of airport capacity is already a constraint nowadays in some airports and it could become even more acute across Europe in the forthcoming years [Ref. 24]. The Community Observatory on airport capacity [Ref. 25] has been established by the EC to address airport capacity constraints.

6.1.6 Safety is addressed in Chapter 3. The air transport framework is presented in Chapter 4. The environmental component of airport system performance is discussed in Chapter 7.

6.1.7 The ANS related performances at airports include:

applied to measure efficiency in the taxi-out (from off-block to take off) and in ASMA (Arrival Sequencing Metering Area; from 100 Nm and/or 40Nm until landing). The methodology is explained in the ATM airport (ATMAP) Framework.

ANS-related off block delays .

Off-block delays measure the difference between planned or scheduled events and actual events. Off block delays is when the planned or scheduled time to leave the stand is delayed. This chapter distinguishes between two types of ANS-related off-block delays: pre-departure delays originated by constraints at the airport of departure (IATA delay coding 89, 71, 75, 76) and ATFM delays originated by situations at the airport of destination (arrival ATFM delays codes G, C, S, W).

The runway peak throughput (maximum service rate) compared to the airport declared capacity21.

The delays experienced at the stand (off block delay) due to constraints in the departure movement area or due to constraints in the destination airport

The time durations of the arrival flight phase (100Nm or 40 Nm out up to landing) and of the taxi-out phase (since leaving the departure stand until take-off).

6.1.8 The delays experienced at the stand due to turn-around processes, late coming aircraft are presented in Chapter 4. ATFM-En-route delays are presented in Chapter 4 and5.

6.1.9 The airport capacity is declared in advance of each IATA season at coordinated airports. It represents an agreed compromise between the maximisation of airport infrastructure utilisation and the quality of service considered as locally acceptable (level of tolerable delay) in a given context of constraints (environmental constraint notably). This trade-off is usually agreed between the airport managing body, the airlines operating the airport and the local ATC provider during the airport capacity declaration process.

6.1.10 In general, the main ANS role at coordinated airports is:

to provide sufficient elements for the determination of the airport declared capacity;

to contribute to the decision making process;

to sustain the declared capacity in daily operations at the best possible quality of service for airspace users (i.e. operate the runway at the level of throughput and traffic queuing agreed in the scheduling phase).

6.1.11 A certain level of queuing time is unavoidable and even necessary to maximize runway throughput, therefore the total absence of queuing times or delay at busy airports is not a desirable objective.

21 The airport declared capacity compared to the maximum service rates defines the headroom in the airport declared capacity and, in some cases, is the most important defining factor for performance particularly at airports which schedule up to the declared capacity for significant periods.


6.2 High level ANS-related performance at airports (2008-2009) 6.2.1 The following ANS-related performance mainly characterises the ANS contribution in the

context of airport operations:

the peak service rate in daily operations compared to the airport declared capacity. In presence of continuous demand, when the peak service rate is at or above the declared capacity, this is a signal that the airport declared capacity could be sustained in daily operations. The airport capacity declaration is a complex exercise which takes into account many variables; some capacity headroom in daily operations allows to absorb traffic fluctuations with minimum penalties for airlines, passengers and environment.

the additional time generated by queuing aircraft in the approach and taxi out phases. When the quality of service is declared in advance during the airport declaration process, the additional time during approach and taxi out phases indicates the ANS ability to adhere to the declared values;

6.2.2 The off block delays generated by ATFM regulations, late start-up or push-back approval, etc. These restrictions are typically used to deal with degraded operating conditions (fog, wind, runway closures, etc.).

6.2.3 Figure 73 presents indicators for the different phases of flight. Delays experienced at the stand and in the block-to-block phases have different impacts on aircraft. Whereas off-block delays (at the gate) result in extra time experienced at the stands, additional times in airborne holdings and in the taxi out phase also generate additional fuel burn.

DEPARTURES (outbound)ARRIVALS (inbound)

UpstreamATFM delays

(at gate)

Additional time within the

ASMA (airborne)

Pre-departuredelays

(at gate)

Additional time in the taxi-out phase (ground)

Airport

Figure 73: Measuring “additional time” and “off-block delays" in different flight phases

6.2.4 The additional times between the landing time and the in-block time (aircraft arrived and stopped at the stand) are not measured.

AIRPORT CAPACITY

6.2.5 The analyses of peak service rate versus peak declared capacity was conducted for the global (Figure 74) and the arrival capacity.

6.2.6 Figure 74 shows that the peak “global” declared capacity has remained constant over the period at all airports. At most airports, the peak service rate is equal or just above the declared capacity. The fact that there are differences between the service rate and airport declared capacity is factual. It does not indicate that there is anything wrong with declaring the capacity close to the maximum operational capacity. It could be a signal that the airport declared capacity is sustained in daily operations. However, additional analysis would be needed to understand in detail the reason why peak service rate is below, at or above, the peak declared capacity.


0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

2007

2008

2009

2007

2008

2009

2007

2008

2009

2007

2008

2009

2007

2008

2009

2007

2008

2009

2007

2008

2009

2007

2008

2009

2007

2008

2009

2007

2008

2009

Paris(CDG)

Amsterdam(AMS)

Madrid(MAD)

Munich(MUC)

London(LHR)

Roma(FCO)

Frankfurt(FRA)

Copenhagen(CPH)

Stockholm(ARN)

Brussels(BRU)

Nu

mb

er o

f m

ove

men

ts b

y h

ou

r

Peak Declared Capacity

Service rate

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

2007

2008

2009

2007

2008

2009

2007

2008

2009

2007

2008

2009

2007

2008

2009

2007

2008

2009

2007

2008

2009

2007

2008

2009

2007

2008

2009

2007

2008

2009

Paris(ORY)

Milan(MXP)

Zurich(ZRH)

Vienna(VIE)

Barcelona(BCN)

Oslo(OSL)

Athens(ATH)

London(LGW)

Dusseldorf(DUS)

Istanbul(IST)

Nu

mb

er o

f m

ove

men

ts b

y h

ou

r

Data source : CFMU, Slot CoordinationPeriod : 2008 - 2009 / 0600 to 2159

Figure 74: Global peak service rate and declared capacity at top 20 airports22

6.2.7 According to the additional analysis conducted by the PRU on the arrival peak service rate and declared capacity, there are 9 airports out of 20 where the arrival peak service rate is below the arrival declared capacity. Most of these airports do not generate significant delay at normal operating conditions; i.e. the peak service rate only reflects the low level of the demand. However, this is not the case in Athens, Madrid, Wien where ATFM regulations are applied nearly each day of the year, at the same time of the day with a capacity lower than the declared one.

6.2.8 Figure 75 shows the number of hours during the peak month in 2009 with hourly movements over 90% of the declared capacity. One can see that the flight demand at some airports is at or above the airport declared capacity for a consistent number of hours (14 hours per day at London (LHR) and Istanbul (IST), more than 10 hours per day at London (LGW) and Frankfurt (FRA). It should be noted that the drop in traffic is a reason to explain the differences between 2009 and 2008 . A similar analysis was conducted for arrival throughput, but no significant differences were noted, with the exception of Zurich which had 100 hours of arrival throughput over 90%.

6.2.9 Given the complexities in airport scheduling, even few congested hours a day could prevent airlines to provide flight services to accommodate passenger demand at requested times.

6.2.10 In some airports, the reason for maintaining the coordination process is not traffic, but specific circumstances such as noise constraints in Paris (ORY) and Amsterdam (AMS).

22 The data sent by Turkey to the CFMU do not enable the Service rate for Istanbul airport to be computed.


0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

Ista

nbul

(IS

T)

Lond

on (

LHR

)

Lond

on (

LGW

)

Fra

nkfu

rt (

FR

A)

Par

is (

CD

G)

Dus

seld

orf

(DU

S)

Mun

ich

(MU

C)

Vie

nna

(VIE

)

Bar

celo

na (

BC

N)

Mad

rid (

MA

D)

Zur

ich

(ZR

H)

Bru

ssel

s (B

RU

)

Rom

a (F

CO

)

Am

ster

dam

(A

MS

)

Osl

o (O

SL)

Par

is (

OR

Y)

Mila

n (M

XP

)

Ath

ens

(AT

H)

Sto

ckho

lm (

AR

N)

Cop

enha

gen

(CP

H)

Nu

mb

er o

f h

ou

rs p

er d

ay d

uri

ng

pea

k m

on

th

wit

h t

raff

ic

ove

r 90

% o

f d

ecla

red

cap

acit

y

2008

2009

Source : CFMU, Slot CoordinationPeriod : 2008 - 2009 / 0600 to 2159

Figure 75: Global throughput over 90% of the declared capacity

6.3 ANS-related service quality observed at the analysed airports AIRPORT ATFM ARRIVAL DELAYS

6.3.1 ATFM regulations should only be used to cope with temporary constraints at the arrival airport (unfavourable weather conditions, malfunctioning of facilities, staff shortage, etc.). When ATFM regulations are systematically used in other circumstances, it is likely that ATC capacity or airport capacity declarations are not consistent each other or ATFM regulations are not efficiently used (see PRR7 par. 4.7).

6.3.2 It should be emphasised that ATFM delays that are considered in this section are experienced at the airport of departure due to constraints at the arrival airport.

6.3.3 Figure 76 shows that ATFM regulations are mainly used at airports to cope with adverse weather conditions. 2009 shows some improvement over 2008, the performance would need to be seen in the light of prevailing weather conditions. Work is in progress to develop indicators which will allow capturing consistently the weather condition.

6.3.4 Istanbul (IST), Vienna (VIE), Madrid (MAD) and Athens (ATH) use ATFM regulations to overcome capacity constraints during good weather conditions.

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

Capacity Code(G,C,S)

Weather Code(W)

All other codes

AT

FM

del

ay [

min

/arr

ival

]

2008

2009

data source : CFM U - Period : 2008 - 2009 0600 to 2159

G Aerodrome capacity W WeatherC ATC Capacity S ATC Staff ing

Figure 76: European average of arrival ATFM

regulations (top 20 airports)

6.3.5 Wind is however above all the most impacting weather phenomena on airports working close to their capacity limit. ATFM delays due to wind represent 86% of all weather ATFM delays at Istanbul (IST) and 71% at London (LHR).


6.3.6 The applied separation minima in Europe are consistent with ICAO standards in a radar environment and are based on distance. Therefore the time between aircraft increases, for instance, when they suffer from a strong head wind component. Time based separations would allow maintaining the same runway throughput under different wind situations. This could be achieved through a modification to ICAO Standards and the use of advanced working organisations and systems (Meteorological infrastructures, AMAN/DMAN tools, PBN, etc) .

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

2008

2009

2008

2009

2008

2009

2008

2009

2008

2009

2008

2009

2008

2009

2008

2009

2008

2009

2008

2009

Istanbul(IST)

Frankfurt(FRA)

Vienna(VIE)

Athens(ATH)

London(LHR)

Brussels(BRU)

Munich(MUC)

Madrid(MAD)

Paris(CDG)

Paris(ORY)

AT

FM

de

lay

[m

in/a

rriv

al]

All other codes

Weather Code (W)

Capacity Code (G,C,S)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

2008

2009

2008

2009

2008

2009

2008

2009

2008

2009

2008

2009

2008

2009

2008

2009

2008

2009

2008

2009

Zurich(ZRH)

Amsterdam(AMS)

Dusseldorf(DUS)

London(LGW)

Milan(MXP)

Roma(FCO)

Copenhagen(CPH)

Oslo(OSL)

Barcelona(BCN)

Stockholm(ARN)

AT

FM

de

lay

[m

in/a

rriv

al]

W Weather G Aerodrome Capacity C ATC Capacity S ATC Staffing

Source : CFMUPeriod : 2008 - 2009 0600 to 2159

Figure 77: Arrival ATFM regulations at the top 20 airports

6.3.7 Further analyses have shown that, in normal operating conditions, Istanbul used arrival ATFM regulations with a capacity higher than the declared value, while Athens and Wien systematically used arrival ATFM regulations with a capacity lower than the declared value. This shows that ANS at the latter two airports (Athens and Wiens) cannot sustain the airport declared capacity in daily operations. Same situation in Madrid for a significant amount of ATFM regulated periods.

ADDITIONAL TIMES IN THE ARRIVAL SEQUENCING AND METERING (ASMA) AREA

6.3.8 Figure 78 shows the average additional time experienced by arrival traffic for each airport23. Improvement can be seen in most of airports, but particularly at London LHR (20% of time reduction compared to a 2% of traffic reduction). The additional time reduction in Athens is offset by an increase of arrival ATFM delays (see Figure 77). Further investigations to explain yearly variations should be conducted.

23 Due to the level of accuracy for landing times at Istanbul (IST) and Stockholm (ARN) in 2008 presently available within EUROCONTROL, the airport was not included in this analysis.


0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

9.0

10.0

Lond

on (

LHR

)

Fra

nkfu

rt (

FR

A)

Vie

nna

(VIE

)

Mun

ich

(MU

C)

Zur

ich

(ZR

H)

Mad

rid (

MA

D)

Lond

on (

LGW

)

Dus

seld

orf

(DU

S)

Ath

ens

(AT

H)

Rom

a (F

CO

)

Bar

celo

na (

BC

N)

Mila

n (M

XP

)

Par

is (

OR

Y)

Osl

o (O

SL)

Par

is (

CD

G)

Bru

ssel

s (B

RU

)

Cop

enha

gen

(CP

H)

Am

ster

dam

(A

MS

)

Sto

ckho

lm (

AR

N)

Ista

nbul

(IS

T)A

SM

A a

dd

itio

nal

tim

e [m

in/a

rriv

al]

2008

2009

Source : CFMUPeriod : 2008 - 2009 / 0600 to 2159

Top 20 average2008 : 3.0 min/arrival2009 : 2.8 min/arrival

Figure 78: Approach (ASMA) additional time (40 NM-landing) at top 20 airports

PRE DEPARTURE DELAYS

6.3.9 When there are constraints at the departure airport or in nearby airspace (TMA and/or approach airspace), departure traffic may be kept on hold at the stand, but without issuing ATFM regulations. Pre-departure delays due to airside and nearby airspace constraints are recorded in the ECODA delay reporting system; IATA delay codes 89, (airside and ATC constraints), 71, 75, 76 (mostly freezing conditions). In a few cases, such as in Munich (MUC), CDM applications are used to convert a part of taxi-out additional times into off-block delays. However, it is not yet common practice to intentionally convert additional taxi-out times into off-block delays.

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

Departure Congestion(IATA code 89)

Departure Weather (IATAcode 71, 75, 76)P

redepart

ure

dela

ys [m

in/d

epart

ure

]

2008

2009

89 Restriction at Airport of departure including ATC71 Departure Station75 De-icing of Aircraft76 Removal of snow , ice, w ater and sand from airport

data source : CODA - period : 2008 - 2009 / 0600 to 2159

Figure 79: European Pre-departure delays (top 20 busy airports)

6.3.10 Figure 79 shows pre-departure delays due to constraints in the departure movement area. IATA code 89 is mostly related to “Departure congestion” which can be influenced by


ANS. In contrast, “Departure weather” includes “freezing conditions”24. which cannot be influenced by ANS (IATA codes 71, 75, 76).

6.3.11 No significant change from 2008 to 2009 for IATA code 89, while some increase in pre-departure delays due to weather can be observed in 2009. This would appear to be linked to the increase in the number of days with “freezing conditions” Once again the development of indicators by ATMAP to capture the MET conditions will be an important element to progress in the understanding of airport performance.

6.3.12 Figure 80 shows the off-block delays related to constraints in the movement area at the departure airport (IATA 89) and due to weather. No significant improvement across Europe. Significant deterioration in code 89 occurred in Istanbul (+57% at +4% of traffic) and in Madrid (+47% at -7% of traffic). Further investigations to explain the deteriorations should be conducted.

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

2008

2009

2008

2009

2008

2009

2008

2009

2008

2009

2008

2009

2008

2009

2008

2009

2008

2009

2008

2009

Istanbul(IST)

London(LHR)

Madrid(MAD)

Brussels(BRU)

Athens(ATH)

London(LGW)

Milan(MXP)

Paris(CDG)

Roma(FCO)

Frankfurt(FRA)

Pre

-dep

artu

re d

elay

s [m

in/d

epar

ture

]

Departure Weather (IATA code 71, 75, 76)

Departure Congestion (IATA code 89)

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

2008

2009

2008

2009

2008

2009

2008

2009

2008

2009

2008

2009

2008

2009

2008

2009

2008

2009

2008

2009

Paris(ORY)

Zurich(ZRH)

Munich(MUC)

Amsterdam(AMS)

Dusseldorf(DUS)

Vienna(VIE)

Stockholm(ARN)

Barcelona(BCN)

Oslo(OSL)

Copenhagen(CPH)

Pre

-dep

artu

re d

elay

s [m

in/d

epar

ture

]

Source : CODAPeriod : 2008 - 2009 / 0600 to 2159

71 Departure Station75 De-icing of Aircraft76 Removal of snow , ice, w ater and sand from airport89 Restriction at Airport of departure including ATC

Figure 80: Pre-departure delays at top 20 busy airports

24 Freezing conditions are when the temperature is lower than +3 degrees in presence of water vapour precipitations (snow, freezing rain, etc.).


TAXI-OUT ADDITIONAL TIMES

6.3.13 Figure 81 shows the additional times25 during the taxi-out phase. Some improvements can be seen in London (LHR & LGW), Barcelona (BCN) and Düsseldorf (DUS).

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

9.0

10.0

Lond

on (

LHR

)

Rom

a (F

CO

)

Ista

nbul

(IS

T)

Lond

on (

LGW

)

Par

is (

CD

G)

Mad

rid (

MA

D)

Bar

celo

na (

BC

N)

Am

ster

dam

(A

MS

)

Mun

ich

(MU

C)

Zur

ich

(ZR

H)

Vie

nna

(VIE

)

Dus

seld

orf

(DU

S)

Mila

n (M

XP

)

Par

is (

OR

Y)

Fra

nkfu

rt (

FR

A)

Osl

o (O

SL)

Ath

ens

(AT

H)

Cop

enha

gen

(CP

H)

Bru

ssel

s (B

RU

)

Sto

ckho

lm (

AR

N)

Tax

i-o

ut

add

itio

nal

tim

e [m

in/d

epar

ture

]

2008

2009

Top 20 average2008 : 5.1 min/arrival2009 : 4.9 min/arrival

Source : CODA/CFMUPeriod : 2008 - 2009 / 0600 to 2159

Figure 81: Taxi-out additional time at top 20 airports

6.3.14 In May 2009, following a PRC recommendation, the Provisional Council requested the States to promote the use of airport collaborative decision-making (A-CDM). This could provide improvements, particularly with regard to a reduction of taxi-out additional times which may be off-set by an increase of less-costly off-block delays. Currently there are few but actual progresses in the implementation of CDM project at major airports26.

ESTIMATED TOTAL DELAYS AND ADDITIONAL TIME

6.3.15 Figure 82 provides a consolidated view of off-block delays and additional times related to ANS. Additional times and ANS-related off-block delays are only partially interchangeable. Off-block delays are usually used to deal with degraded operating conditions, while additional times are used to queue traffic in normal operating conditions. A dramatic reduction of additional times may have negative repercussion in the airport capacity utilisation.

6.3.16 The left side of Figure 82 reports delays and additional times on the inbound traffic flow (airport arrival ATFM delays + ASMA additional times). The right side shows the off-block delays and the additional times on the outbound traffic flow (pre-departure and taxi-out phase).

25 CFMU data are used to determine the level of congestion at the airport and CODA data are used for the taxi time calculations. The methodology is explained in the ATMAP Framework Edition 2009.

26 Airport CDM European Airport Stakeholder – Survey 2009; EUROCONTROL Airport CDM Coordination Group. The survey reports about the status of CDM implementation in Europe.


0 5 10 15

minutes per departure

Departure Congestion (IATA Codes 89)

Additional time in the taxi-out phase

051015

Stockholm (ARN)Copenhagen (CPH)Oslo (OSL)Brussels (BRU)Milan (MXP)Paris (ORY)Amsterdam (AMS)Barcelona (BCN)Dusseldorf (DUS)Athens (ATH)Munich (MUC)Zurich (ZRH)Paris (CDG)Vienna (VIE)London (LGW)Madrid (MAD)Frankfurt (FRA)Roma (FCO)Istanbul (IST)London (LHR)

minutes per arrival

ATFM - OTHER (Equipment, Special event, Strike, etc.)ATFM- WEATHERATFM - ATC & Aerodrome CapacityAdditional ASMA time (TMA airborne)

Arrivals Departures

Source: CFMU/CODA Period : 2009 / 0600 to 2159

N/A

Figure 82: Estimated total additional time related to airport airside operations in 2009

6.3.17 Figure 83 shows the relationship between additional time and airport slot utilisation for the top 20 busy airports. Additional times increase exponentially with the airport slot utilisation. However additional times in winter are higher than in summer, although the airport utilisation is generally lower. This demonstrates that other factors influence performance, weather in particular. More work is needed to better understand the relation between service quality, demand management and other factors such as weather conditions.

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Slot utilisation [%]

To

tal e

sti

ma

ted

ad

dit

ion

al t

ime

[m

in/m

ov

]

Source: CFMU/CODA Period : 2009 / 0600 to 2159

Figure 83: Airport slot utilisation/additional times

6.4 Conclusions 6.4.1 There have been some improvements in ANS performance at airports in 2009

6.4.2 Air Navigation Services at the top 20 major airports can adequately sustain the declared airport capacity in daily operations during favourable conditions, with the exception of Vienna, Athens and partially Madrid.

6.4.3 Overall, the performance in Athens, Istanbul, Madrid and Wien has significantly deteriorated, mainly due to capacity constraints.


6.4.4 There were significant improvements in the approach phase at London LHR (20% reduction of additional time) without increase in ATFM delay, under slightly reduced traffic (-2%).

6.4.5 ANS performance at airports is more affected by weather conditions than traffic changes with the European system of airport slot allocation.

6.4.6 The implementation of operational concepts, systems and procedures to improve ANS performance during unfavourable weather conditions, especially high winds, should be expedited. The application of time-based separation in final approach instead of distance-based separation will certainly improve the situation. This will require, inter alia, Meteorological infrastructures, AMAN/DMAN tools and CDM.

Chapter 7: Environment

PRR 2009 Chapter 7: Environment

72

7 Environment


Aviation represents 3.5% of man made CO2 emission in Europe. ANS-actionable CO2 emissions are estimated to be 6% of aviation-related emissions and account therefore for some 0.2% of total CO2 emissions in Europe.

ANS fuel efficiency is already high, close to 94%, and there is therefore limited scope for improvement from ANS. Due to safety requirements, environmental constraints (noise) and other factors, ANS fuel efficiency cannot attain 100%.

The main limitations to ANS fuel efficiency are related to horizontal route extension (3.9% of total fuel burn) and airborne terminal delays mainly related to sequencing arrival traffic into main airports (1.1% of total fuel burn).

Even higher priority should be given (1) to the optimisation of the route network and (2) to the implementation of arrival management at main airports. In the longer term (SESAR IP2), the focus should move to a more integrated management of the flight trajectory geared to optimising arrival time.

96% of aviation-related CO2 emissions originate from flights longer than one hour, for which there is virtually no alternative mode of transport.

Noise and local air quality is a major concern of residents in the vicinity of major airports. The implementation of local restrictions implies complex trade-offs (e.g. noise vs. emissions) which need to take into account local specificities.

7.1 Introduction 7.1.1 Environmental sustainability is an increasingly important political, economic and social

issue.

7.1.2 Aviation has a global and a local impact on the environment. However, not all aspects of the environmental impact of aviation can be influenced by the ANS system. The first part of this chapter focuses on the global impact and evaluates the ANS contribution towards reducing the impact of aviation on climate (Section 7.2.). The second part of this chapter (section 7.2) looks at local air quality and noise at and around major airports.

7.2 Reducing the environmental impact of aviation 7.2.1 In 2007, total anthropogenic (man-made) GHG emissions in the EU 27 States were

estimated to be around 5 billion tons, of which 4.2 billion tons were attributable to CO2 emissions.

AVIATION EMISSIONS

7.2.2 The environmental impact of aviation on climate results from greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions including CO2, NOx, and cirrus clouds formed by aircraft engine exhaust. CO2 emissions are presently considered to have the largest cumulative impact on the climate but the exact impact of aircraft induced cirrus clouds or linear contrails on climate is still being evaluated.

7.2.3 According to the European Environmental Agency (EEA), transportation is a major contributor (28.4%), and aviation accounts for 3.5% of total anthropogenic CO2 emissions in Europe (2.5% world-wide). Figure 84 shows the CO2 emissions related to direct fuel burn by industry sector.

PRR 2009 73 Chapter 7: Environment

Railways0.2%

Aviation3.5% Other

Transportation0.2%

Public Electricity & Heat Production

31.0%

Road Transportation

20.1%

Marine4.3%

Transportation28.4%

Other 0.9%

Other Energy Industries 4.6%

Residential9.2%

Manufacturing Industries & Construction

14.1%

Commercial/ Institutional

3.6%

Agriculture/ Forestry/ Fisheries

1.6%

Industrial Processes

6.7%

Figure 84: Contribution of CO2 emissions by sector in EU27 area (2007)

7.2.4 The relative share of aviation in total CO2 emissions may increase not only because of traffic growth, but also because of the longer lead time for using alternative energy sources27.

7.2.5 Ideally, the evaluation of the CO2 contribution and possible mitigation measures would require information on the entire life cycle. For the transport sector, this would not only include emissions related to direct fuel burn (as shown in Figure 84) but also emissions related to power production for electrically powered vehicles (such as trains) and emissions related to the building of transport infrastructure and vehicles.

7.2.6 The consideration of the full life cycle emissions approximately doubles greenhouse gas emissions from rail travel. For air travel, the full life cycle emissions are estimated to be 10-20% higher than emissions from direct fuel burn in view of the limited infrastructure required for air transport [Ref. 26]. A comparison between transport modes would therefore be less contrasted than the distribution shown in Figure 84, if the full life cycle was taken into account.

ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY - GLOBAL CONTEXT

7.2.7 In the Kyoto Protocol (1997), 37 industrialised countries committed themselves to a reduction of greenhouse gases. However, under the present rules and modalities only domestic aviation is included and the Kyoto Mechanisms are not used for the purpose of addressing GHG emissions from international aviation.

7.2.8 Instead, countries were asked to work through the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) to pursue a limitation or reduction of greenhouse gases from international aviation.

7.2.9 In response to this request and ahead of the UN climate talks in Copenhagen (December,

27 The evolution of emissions has to be seen in a context where there is a range of renewable and alternative energy sources available to ground transport, domestic appliances and industry. Moreover, there is often a faster turnover of energy-using assets (e.g. cars, domestic appliances, domestic boilers, process plant, lorries, buses), while the life time of aircraft is typically 30 years, which makes the uptake of more efficient technologies generally faster on the ground.


2009), ICAO committed at its High-level Meeting on International Aviation and Climate Change (October, 2009) to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from aviation through improved fuel efficiency, market-based measures, and use of low carbon fuels. Additionally, ICAO declared that Member States should work together to achieve a global annual average fuel efficiency improvement of 2% until 2020.

7.2.10 ICAO will consider the possibility of more ambitious goals, including carbon neutral growth and emissions reductions, by its next assembly in the third quarter of 2010, and will establish a process to develop a framework for economic measures.

7.2.11 The International Air Transport Association (IATA) has outlined a proposal under which airlines will halve emissions by 2050 (compared to 2005 levels), set a target of improving fuel efficiency by 1.5%28 annually in the run-up to 2020 and, from then on, stabilise emissions through carbon-neutral growth.

ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY - EUROPEAN CONTEXT

7.2.12 According to the “Climate action and renewable energy package”, the EU is committed to reducing its overall emissions to at least 20% below 1990 levels by 2020.

7.2.13 The two most relevant policy measures with regard to reducing the aviation related impact on the environment are the EU Emission Trading Scheme (ETS) and the Single European Sky (SES).

7.2.14 While the EU Emission Trading Scheme (EU/ETS) aims at reducing overall Emissions in Europe, the EC has now introduced legislation to include aviation in the EU/ETS from 2012 in order to mitigate the impact of aviation on climate.

7.2.15 The European Directive 2008/101/EC [Ref. 27] amending Directive 2003/87/EC [Ref. 28] entered into force on 2 February 2009.

7.2.16 This will make aviation the first and so far the only mode of transport to be included in the ETS and will require the aviation sector to realise GHG emissions reductions, by either decreasing their own emissions or buying allowances on the market. For the first trading period in 2012, the CO2 allowance is set to 97% of average aviation emissions during the years 2004–2006. For the second trading period (2013-2020), the limit will be set to 95% of the baseline

ETS Main dates:

31st August, 2009: Deadline for the submission of monitoring plans (both for emissions and activity)

31st December 2009: Approval limit of monitoring plans by the regulatory authority,

1st January 2010: Beginning of the emissions and activity data monitoring

31st March 2011: Deadline to submit emissions and activity reports and to ask for free allowances (associated to the activity report submission)

2012: First trading period of one year

2013-2020: Second trading period

7.2.17 The main share of the aviation allowances (85%) will be allocated freely to aircraft operators according to the tonne kilometres flown in 2010. The remaining 15% will be put up for auction.

28 Previously, the target was 1% and the 1.5% target assumes optimum innovation circumstances to meet the target.


7.2.18 The EU/ETS applies to all IFR flights (with MTOW bigger than 5,7t) to/from a Member State of the European Union.

7.2.19 Figure 85 highlights differences in the scope between the EU/ETS which applies to all flights from/to European airports and the scope of analysis in this report which focuses only on the part flown within the EUROCONTROL airspace.

Figure 85: Aviation emissions in ETS (2009)

7.2.20 In addition to the EU/ETS, the Single European Sky (SES) performance scheme and the subsequent target setting are expected to further drive fuel efficiency improvements with resulting positive effects for the environment. In order to ensure a smooth and effective implementation it is important that the necessary regulatory competence in the environmental field is put in place before the start of the first reference period in 2012.

POTENTIAL IMPROVEMENT FROM MULTI-MODAL SHIFT

7.2.21 Rail and other forms of transport are often suggested as more environmentally-friendly substitutes for air travel. Figure 86 shows the proportions of flights and corresponding fuel burn for flights departing from Europe29, broken down by flight time (entire flight).

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%

<=60 min. 61-120min.

121-180min.

> 3hrs

Flight duration in hours

Flights

Fuel Burn

Flights departing from Europe(entire flight distance)

Figure 86: Fuel burn by duration of flight (2009)

7.2.22 Figure 86 shows that 23% of flights departing from Europe are shorter than 1 hour, and that they account for 4% of total aviation fuel burn. Therefore, 96% of aviation emissions originate from flights longer than one hour, for which alternative modes of transport are very limited in practice.

7.2.23 Flights shorter than 1 hour burn a small portion of aviation fuel (4%). Of this, a relatively small proportion could be saved by substitution to rail transport with the development of the European high speed rail (HSR) network [Ref. 29]. The potential for reducing aviation emissions by substitution to rail transport is therefore very limited.

29 Only departing flights are considered to avoid double-counting of flights within Europe and to allow global consolidation of such statistics. Similar statistics would be obtained for arrival flights. Over-flights are nearly negligible (~0.5% of flights).

11 Mt

Outside European Airspace

107 Mt CO2

Within European

Union

122 Mt CO2

Coverage EC - ETS (229 Mt)

Pan-European airspace (133 Mt)

EUROCONTROL


IMPROVING AVIATION FUEL EFFICIENCY

7.2.24 It is acknowledged that the aviation industry has a responsibility to reduce its impact on global climate and that there is scope to further improve aviation efficiency in view of the environmental benefits to society and economic benefits to airspace users.

7.2.25 Figure 87 shows a conceptual framework for the evaluation of CO2 emissions efficiency of aviation. The overall performance is the product of four factors: net carbon content of fuel

CO2 emissions (kg)

Actual fuelburn (kg)

Fuel burn (kg) (on user preferred trajectory)

Available tonnekilometre (ATK)

Revenue tonnekilometre (RTK)

Aircraft fuel efficiency

ANS fuelefficiency

Net carbon content

Load factor

Aviation CO2 efficiencyAirlines/

Manufacturers

ANS

Alternativefuels

Horizontal en-route flight path

Taxi phase

Vertical en-route profile

Airborne terminal phase

CO2 emissions (kg)

Actual fuelburn (kg)

Fuel burn (kg) (on user preferred trajectory)

Available tonnekilometre (ATK)

Revenue tonnekilometre (RTK)

Aircraft fuel efficiency

ANS fuelefficiency

Net carbon content

Load factor

Aviation CO2 efficiencyAirlines/

Manufacturers

ANS

Alternativefuels

Horizontal en-route flight path

Taxi phase

Vertical en-route profile

Airborne terminal phase

Figure 87: Framework for the evaluation of industry driven fuel efficiency

improvements

7.2.26 In this framework, the overall aviation CO2 emissions efficiency is measured in kilograms of CO2 per Revenue Tonne Kilometre (RTK), or similar measure of commercial aviation output. This top level indicator can be broken down in four parts, which correspond to different accountabilities and performance improvement options.

The first part is net carbon content of fuel, defined as the ratio of net kilogram of CO2 per kilogram of fuel. For kerosene, this ratio is 3.15.

7.2.27 The net carbon content can be significantly reduced with bio-fuels, produced from bio-materials which absorb carbon from the atmosphere before it is emitted back in the atmosphere. This ratio could even be reduced to zero if hydrogen can be used as aviation fuel and produced carbon-free.

7.2.28 Alternative fuels are therefore a potentially powerful way to decouple aviation emissions from air traffic, but much research, development, investment and time are still needed before any significant deployment.

The second part is ANS fuel efficiency, defined as the ratio of fuel burn on user-preferred trajectory and actual fuel burn. Performance in this part is under ANS control. The potential for improvement is developed in section 7.3.

7.2.29 The evaluation of the ANS contribution towards reducing the aviation related impact on climate in the following sections is closely related to operational performance and hence fuel efficiency as this is an area where ANS has an impact. There is substantial consistency between reducing GHG emissions and airspace user requirements to minimise fuel burn.

The third part is Aircraft fuel efficiency, defined as fuel burn on user preferred trajectory per Available Tonne-Kilometre (ATK) or alternative measure of air transport capacity.


7.2.30 Aircraft fuel efficiency is under airlines’ and manufacturers’ influence. It can be improved by fleet renewal with more efficient aircraft, advances in airframe and engine technology, and optimised use of aircraft (speed, stage length, etc).

7.2.31 Over the past years, there have been significant improvements in aircraft technology and operational efficiency (improved engines, higher load factors, larger aircraft size) resulting in a significant reduction of fuel burn per passenger kilometre (see Figure 90).

The fourth part is aircraft load factor, defined as the ratio between used capacity (RTK) and offered capacity (ATK). Average load factors are already high (in the 80% range) and there is limited room for improvement there.

7.2.32 The following table summarises the different factors contributing to aviation CO2

emissions efficiency, action areas and potential improvement.

Factor Actionable by Potential improvement

Net carbon content Alternative fuel policy High in the medium-long term ANS fuel efficiency ANS performance under SES Limited (see § 7.3) Aircraft fuel efficiency Fleet renewal

Aircraft design and use Significant over time

Load factor Airline policy Limited as load factors are already very high (~80%)

Figure 88: Factors contributing to aviation CO2 efficiency

7.2.33 The IATA technology roadmap in Figure 89 shows how the different factors can be combined over time provides to decouple aviation emissions from traffic growth.

7.2.34 While there is clearly scope for improvement from ANS, the main contribution to the reduction of CO2 emissions is expected to come from fleet renewal, technology developments and low carbon fuels.

Figure 89: Schematic evolution of CO2 emissions

Source: IATA

Figure 90: Aviation efficiency

0

50

100

150

200

250

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

bas

e 10

0 =

1990

Source: ICAO

Figure 91: CO2 emissions from aviation

7.2.35 However those significant efficiency improvements in global aviation over the past were not sufficient to achieve carbon neutral growth at global level which subsequently resulted in an increase in aviation related CO2 emissions over the years (see Figure 91).


7.3 ATM contribution towards reducing CO2 Emissions in Europe 7.3.1 This section relates the share of CO2 emissions actionable by ANS to total European

emissions (see Figure 92).

Overall Emissions(4.5 Bn tonnes CO2)

100%

Aviation3.5%

ANS* 0.2%

Actionable by ANS• Flight efficiency• Airborne delays• Taxi efficiency• other

- UN climate summit (int. aviation presently excluded (Kyoto 1997, Copenhagen 2009)

- EU Council by 2020 (-20%)

- International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO)- International Air Transport Association (IATA)- European Union/ Emission Trading Scheme

• EUROCONTROL objectives & targets

• SES II Performance targets

* Additional emissions compared to an optimum trajectory, ANS can act on part of this, although in many cases the root cause of the problem is outside ANS (e.g. noise restrictions, lack of runway capacity).

Actionable by airlines, manufacturers• Low carbon fuels;• Aircraft and engine technologies;• yield management decisions etc’

3.3%

Figure 92: ANS contribution to reduce aviation related CO2 emissions

7.3.2 Figure 93 provides an overview of total aviation emissions within European airspace in 2009. Total aviation related CO2 emissions are estimated to be 133 million tons in 2009 compared to 138 million in 2008.

Flights to/from EUROCONTROL area

2009 Flights within EUROCONTROL

area Within airspace

Outside airspace

TOTAL within EURO-

CONTROL area

a b c a+b Number of flights 7.7M 1.7 M 9.4 M Average number of seats 125 220 153 Average Max. Take Off Weight 63 t 203 t 94 t

Average Distance flown 900 km 1 691 km 3 039 km 1 046 km Average flight time 80 min 125 min 206 min 88 min Fuel per flight (including taxi) 3.1 t 10.8 t 22.4 t 4.5 t Total Fuel 23 Mt 19 Mt 39 Mt 42 Mt CO2 (3.15kg/ kg of fuel) 74 Mt 59 Mt 122 Mt 133 Mt % 56% 44% 100%

Figure 93: Aviation emissions within European airspace in 2009

7.3.3 Figure 94 summarises the current best estimate of “inefficiencies” actionable by ANS in the individual flight phases based on a comparison of actual performance to a theoretical optimum.

7.3.4 It is important to emphasise that the share of ANS actionable CO2 emissions shown in Figure 94 relates to a theoretical optimum (distances and times) from a single flight perspective which are not achievable at system level due to inherent necessary (safety) or desired (noise, capacity) limitations and can therefore not be reduced to zero.


7.3.5 The figures in Figure 94 contain inevitably margins of uncertainty. For instance, the great circle distance used for the calculation of the inefficiencies in the horizontal flight path may not always correspond to the user preferred profile which also considers factors such as wind or route charges.

7.3.6 The development of a “fuel efficiency indicator” based on a comparison of actual fuel burn with fuel burn needed for the user preferred 4-D trajectory would be an important ANS-related performance indicator as it would also consider wind optimised routing and user preferences and work should be facilitated in this direction by SESAR.

7.3.7 Such an indicator would require more precise information on factors such as weather conditions, aircraft weight, aircraft engines and, above all, a precise definition of the user preferred trajectory. A more exact estimation of the ANS contribution would require advancements in ATM performance databases (weather, user preference, optimum speed etc) and work needs to be carried out to explore the most efficient way to collect and process such information.

Estimated inefficiency actionable by ANS Fuel/ flight Fuel Total CO2 total %

Estimated avg. within European airspace 4.5 t 42Mt 133 Mt 100%

Horizontal en-route flight path 163 kg 1.5Mt 4.8 Mt 3.6% Vertical en-route flight profile 25 kg 0.2Mt 0.7 Mt 0.6% Airborne terminal 51 kg 0.5Mt 1.5 Mt 1.1% Taxi-out phase 32 kg 0.3Mt 0.9 Mt 0.7% Total 271 kg 2.5Mt 8.0 Mt 6%

Figure 94: Share of CO2 emissions actionable by ANS in 2009

7.3.8 The estimated average fuel efficiency is estimated to be close to 94% which means that ANS can only have an impact on some 6% of total fuel burn.

7.3.9 The share of CO2 emissions actionable by ANS is estimated to be around 6% of total aviation related emissions. This corresponds to approximately 0.2% of total CO2 emissions in Europe (6% x 3.5% ≈ 0.2%)

Horizontal en-route flight

path3.6%

Vertical en-route flight

profile0.6%

Airborne terminal

1.1%

Taxi-out phase0.7%

Estimated average fuel efficiency

94%

6%


Figure 95: ANS fuel efficiency


7.3.10 Although the share of CO2 emissions actionable by ANS is comparatively small, in the absence of capacity or technological improvements, ANS-related inefficiencies are likely to grow in absolute terms with demand. Maintaining or improving the same level of ANS service quality while absorbing projected demand increases over the next 20 years will be challenging.

7.3.11 The horizontal en-route flight path is the main component (3.6%), followed by airborne delays in the terminal area (terminal holdings) which are estimated to be around 1.1%. The horizontal en-route flight path is addressed in more detail in Chapter 5 and ANS-related inefficiencies at airports are addressed in more detail in Chapter 6.

ANS RELATED INIATIVES TO IMPROVE FUEL EFFICIENCY

7.3.12 The ANS-related impact on climate is closely linked to operational performance which is largely driven by inefficiencies in the four dimensional trajectory and associated fuel burn. Figure 94 shows that there is scope for improvement in the horizontal flight path (route network design) but also in the management of any non-optimal aspects of the flight trajectory (e.g. where delays are taken).

7.3.13 Improved route network: Most of the additional fuel burn on which ANS can have an impact relates to the horizontal flight path en-route and hence to the route network design (see Figure 94).

7.3.14 The improvement of the European route network is a Pan-European issue and for this reason one of the European Union wide performance targets within the SES II performance scheme should be the development of an improvement plan for the Pan-European network in collaboration with States/FABs.

7.3.15 Although Figure 93 shows that a significant portion of flights to/from Europe are within European airspace (1/3), there is a need for wider collaboration. Project like the Atlantic Interoperability Initiative to Reduce Emissions (AIRE) should be pursued.

7.3.16 Improved trajectory management: A large part of ANS related inefficiencies are the result of imbalances between demand and available capacity, coupled with the need to provide sequencing and safe separation.

7.3.17 While ANS is not always the root cause of those inefficiencies (weather, airport scheduling, noise restrictions, etc.), the way the inefficiencies are managed and distributed along the various phases of flight has clearly an impact on the environment in terms of gaseous emissions and noise, on airspace users in terms of fuel burn and on the air transport system in terms of capacity utilisation.

7.3.18 Care should be taken to avoid that fuel savings made in one flight phase are offset by increased fuel burn in another phase. Figure 96 outlines some of the issues that need to be considered.

ATFM ground holding

Keeping the aircraft on the ground is not always the most fuel efficient strategy. It can be more fuel efficient to let the aircraft fly at reduced speed. The amount of time that can be absorbed in this way is however limited.

With the current ICAO “first come first served” rule, ATFM delays can paradoxically even lead to a higher overall fuel burn as pilots fly at higher speed to recover part of the ATFM delay en-route only to join the arrival queue at the airport of arrival.


Speed adjustments

The reduction of speed already in the en-route phase is more fuel efficient than airborne holdings or path stretching and arrival sequencing should be achieved to the extent possible through speed adjustments en-route.

Due to the narrow speed envelop in cruise, any speed reduction (to fuel optimum speed) has to start early enough. Efficient management of the flight trajectory therefore require co-ordination across ATC units and in many cases across different ANSPs. The amount of time that can be absorbed in this way is however limited.

Airborne holdings

Optimum holding levels vary considerably by aircraft type. For many aircraft types (e.g. A300 A330-203, A310-324) it is more efficient to hold at FL100 than at FL 350. As a result, for a number of aircraft types where a holding requirement is transferred to the en-route phase in order to support a continuous descent (CD), if not properly managed, could even result in a higher fuel burn than if the CD operation had not been attempted.

Figure 96: Considerations for optimising the arrival flow

7.3.19 The current operational ATM concept in Europe is fragmented and the focus is on the management of departure times. When traffic is anticipated to exceed the available capacity en-route route or at airports, aircraft are held at the departure airports through the application of ATFM departure slots to limit airborne holding (and fuel burn) at the arrival airports (see Figure 97).

additional fuel burndue to increased speed to

recover delay & to join arrival queue

Ground holdingat departure

Airborne holding& path stretching

Unconstrained

Figure 97: ATM concept today

7.3.20 A more integrated approach focusing on optimising the four dimensional (4-D) trajectory of flights in order to minimise fuel burn (and emissions) while maximising the utilisation of available en-route and airport capacity should be facilitated.

7.3.21 The integrated approach would combine flow management techniques to reduce fuel burn but requires a well designed set of tools and procedures.

Limited ground holding

Optimiseddescend

Speedadjustments

fuel savingdue to reduced speed

already in the en-route phase

Figure 98: Integrated trajectory

management

7.3.22 In the short term priority should be given in the implementation of arrival managers at main airports as required by DMEAN and SESAR IP1. While arrival managers have been in place for many years at some airports (COMPASS at Frankfurt, MAESTRO at Paris) they may not yet be fully utilised for the purpose envisaged and are still not available at many airports. When fully utilised, arrival managers will help to improve fuel efficiency in two complementary ways:

Firstly by optimising the arrival sequence at the runway and therefore by optimising the arrival throughput; and,

Secondly by moving part of the sequencing en-route and thus reducing the need to vector arriving aircraft which in turn facilitates Continuous Descent Operations (CDO) without the need to absorb delay in other parts of the flight.


7.3.23 In the longer term (SESAR) the focus should move from operations based on accurate departure times (current ATFM concept) to a concept that focused on the required time of arrival. This would make better use of the Required Time of Arrival (RTA) functionality available on many aircraft today.

7.3.24 Moving towards a requested time of arrival concept needs an increased predictability of capacity variations (and therefore better weather forecasts), a wide application of approach/departure sequencing tools, and increased involvement of the cockpit in managing the arrival/departure sequence.

Related Initiative(s):

The NEAN Update Programme (NUP) and the EUROCONTROL CTA/ATC integration studies (CASSIS) focus on optimising the arrival phase of flights into airports by using data from the Flight Management System (FMS) of the aircraft involved to support selected ground based and airborne applications (A-CDM, AMAN/DMAN, etc.). This is expected to be a key enabler for performing more advanced facilitation of CDO (also known as “the green approach) in periods of high traffic as demonstrated at Sweden's largest airport Stockholm/Arlanda by the Swedish Air Navigation Service Provider, LFV, together with SAS. A similar concept of “tailored arrival” is taking place at Los Angeles and San Francisco for some arrivals.

7.4 Reducing aviation’s environmental impact at/around airports 7.4.1 Noise and local air quality are the most important local factors from an environmental

point of view for local communities and airports alike and in the recent years a number of EC directives addressing noise and local air quality have been adopted.

7.4.2 Establishing environmental restrictions at airports can have an impact on aircraft mix (engine types, etc.) and trajectories (route design) in the vicinity of the airport. Environmental restrictions can however also lead to capacity constraints at that airport and hence lead to congestion. Environmental restrictions may also influence each other, e.g. affecting the flight path to minimise noise exposure on the ground could lead to reduced flight efficiency and thus increased emissions.

LOCAL AIR QUALITY (LAQ)

7.4.3 Local air quality LAQ is concerned with potential health effects of air pollution. Aircraft, road vehicles and other sources such as power plants at and around airports emit a number of pollutants, particularly Oxides of Nitrogen (NOx) and fine particles (PM10) which impact on human health. From a local air quality point of view, NOx is generally considered to be the most significant pollutant.

7.4.4 While there is no specific EC legislation in relation to aviation, the EC Directive 2008/50/EC [Ref. 30] on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe sets clear standards and requires Member States to stay within set limits for these pollutants.

7.4.5 The direct impact of aviation on LAQ is primarily related to emissions from aircraft below 1000 ft depending on the weather. ICAO established as standard Landing/Take-off cycle for operations up to 3000 ft.


The EUROCONTROL Airport Local Air Quality Studies (ALAQS) aim at promoting best practice methods for airport LAQ analysis concerning issues such as emissions inventory, dispersion, and the data required for the calculations. However, the area remains quite complex, particularly with a view to assessing ANS contribution.

Under the ICAO technical design standard (CAEP/4) which is effective as of January 2004, new aircraft engines must meet specified levels of NOx emissions, depending on their power output.

7.4.6 Figure 99 shows the contribution of various areas to local air quality at Manchester airport. With the exception of fine particles (PM10), aircraft account for the main share of the emissions.


Figure 99: Contribution to Local Air Quality at Manchester airport

7.4.7 Aviation related local initiatives aimed at the improvement of LAQ include:

airport charges based on the amount of NOx created during take-off and landing to encourage airlines to use lower emission engines. To this end, some airports such as London Heathrow (LHR) track the share of aircraft compliant with the ICAO CAEP/4 standard;

the reduction of emissions from Auxiliary Power Units (APU) through increased use of fixed electrical ground power (FEGP) when the aircraft is at the stand, and;

the improvement of the taxi efficiency through the introduction of “Collaborative Decision Making (CDM).

7.4.8 Although NOx emissions depend on many factors, the impact of ANS on LAQ is predominantly related to additional fuel burn due to inefficiencies in the taxi phase Chapter 6. Those ANS related inefficiencies have also an impact on global climate from CO2 emissions.

AIRCRAFT NOISE

7.4.9 Noise from air transport operations is mainly a local issue which can have a negative impact on society. In order to reduce the negative impact, there are a number of mitigation options including restrictions on aviation (reduced movements, preferred routes, etc.) which limit noise levels, but at the same time often have an impact on capacity, flight efficiency and emissions.

7.4.10 The degree of perceived annoyance for a given noise level can vary by culture and social circumstances. However as pointed out by the World Health Organisation, noise above a certain level has clearly adverse impacts on people’s health, quality of life and on other factors such as housing values and the learning acuity of students in affected schools.

7.4.11 Two EC noise Directives of particular importance to aviation were implemented in Europe. The first Directive (2002/30/EC [Ref. 31]) based on the ICAO ‘Balanced Approach’ specifies the overall approach to airport noise management in Europe with a particular focus on the equal treatment of reductions at source (aircraft and engine


standards), land-use planning restrictions, operational procedures (ATM) and operational restrictions (including assessment and consultation requirements before their introduction).

7.4.12 The second EC Directive (2002/49/EC [Ref. 32]) provides guidance for Member States on the assessment and management of environmental noise using harmonised noise metrics and subsequent publishing of noise management plans. The EC directive requires competent authorities in Member States to draw up "strategic noise maps" for major roads, railways, airports30 and agglomerations, using harmonised noise indicators and to draw up action plans to reduce noise where necessary.

L(den) & L(night):

L(den) is advocated by the Directive 2002/49/49 as an indicator for the assessment of environmental noise to which people are exposed. It is a logarithmic composite of the L(day), L(evening), and L(night) levels. L(den) It is measured in decibels (dB) and makes use of A-weighted average sound levels. Evening noise is penalized by 5 dB and nightly noise by 10 dB.

L(night) is selected to assess potential sleep disturbance. Both indicators can be determined either by computation or by measurement further described in the EC Directive.

7.4.13 For each major airport, two maps depicting the results in terms of the L(den), and L(night) shall be produced. The strategic noise maps based on the L(den) and L(night) indicator must at least show the 55, 60, 65, 70, and 75dB contours. Figure 100 shows the strategic noise map for Paris Orly (ORY) airport.

7.4.14 These contours broadly equate to noise levels and metrics generally regarded as marking the onset of significant disturbance around airports. Values similar to these are used for planning restrictions on residential development. This does not mean that lower noise levels are unimportant, but below these levels, there is a general consensus that the majority of people are not unacceptably disturbed.

Figure 100: Strategic noise map for Paris Orly airport

30 “Applicable to ‘major airports’ shall mean a civil airport, designated by the Member State, which has more than 50 000 movements per year (a movement being a take-off or a landing), excluding those purely for training purposes on light aircraft”;


7.4.15 In addition to the strategic noise maps, EC Directive 2002/49 [Ref. 32] requires States to report the estimated total number of people affected by transport noise in agglomerations with more than 250 000 inhabitants.

7.4.16 Figure 101 shows that more than half of the population in agglomerations with more than 250 000 inhabitants is affected by road noise levels exceeding 55dB Lden. The number of people exposed to noise from major airports (Lden and Lnight) is shown in Annex VII.

7.4.17 Although exposure to noise from railways (5%) and airports (3%) is much lower, it is interesting to note that there is a higher sensitivity towards aircraft noise which is perceived to be “louder” than noise from other modes of transport [Ref.. 32].

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Roads Railways Airports% o

f peo

ple

expo

sed

to n

oise

ban

ds

Lden > 55 dB

Lnight > 50 dB

Source: European Topic Centre on Land Use and Spatial Information

Figure 101: People affected by aircraft noise

7.4.18 The aforementioned EC Directives 2002/30 [Ref. 31] and 2002/49 [Ref. 32] do not set either noise limits nor do they set targets but leave the responsibility on Member States to agree on acceptable noise levels. This resulted in a large number of approaches to mitigate noise at airports.

7.4.19 It should be noted that there are trade-offs which need to be considered when noise restrictions are put in place at airports. Depending on the approach, noise restrictions may adversely affect flight efficiency (e.g. noise routes and runway use) and capacity utilisation.

7.4.20 ANS can have an impact on the airports’ noise footprint as well as on the population affected by aviation noise through measures including, inter alia: the management of taxiing (ground noise), the selection of runway and runway configuration, the management of engine testing and the design and application of designated routes (SIDs and STARs) in and out of airports.


The System for Airport Noise Exposure Studies (STAPES) project was jointly initiated by the European Commission, EUROCONTROL and EASA. The objective is to develop an aircraft noise model capable of supporting all types of noise impact assessments in relation to the EC’s or the ICAO’s future policy options, as well as any new operational concept designed under the SESAR programme.

7.4.21 The main noise-reducing contribution of ANS is in the management of departure and arrival procedures and the ability to maximise the use of modern aircraft capabilities. Among others, these include:

Noise preferential routes/ runways;

Airspace design parameters including avoiding sensitive areas;

Noise abatement departure procedure;

Continuous descent operations (CDO);

Low power/ low drag (LP/LD);

Limitation of engines running on the ground; and,

Capture of ILS glide slope at higher altitude.

7.4.22 Noise restrictions are usually imposed on airports by Governments or local Planning


Authorities and the level of compliance is monitored at local level. Noise is usually considered to be the responsibility of the airport operator, but in fact noise is a shared responsibility of all local operational stakeholders at an airport. Noise is therefore considered to be more of a local environmental performance issue with little added value for aggregation at European level.

7.4.23 An example of how noise compliance is monitored is Manchester Airport where several years ago the airport operator entered into a binding agreement to secure permission for a second runway. This agreement has around 100 clauses many of which refer to noise (e.g. a maximum of 5% of all departures to be non-standard clearances). Performance under this agreement is reported annually by the airport to the planning authorities and this report and the information systems that are used to populate this are scrutinised by an independent auditor who reports to local environmental regulators.

7.5 Conclusions 7.5.1 Sustainable development and global emissions are on the top of the political agenda. The

significant fuel efficiency improvements in global aviation over the past were not sufficient to realise carbon neutral growth which subsequently resulted in an increase in aviation related CO2 emissions over the years.

7.5.2 Aviation represents 3.5% of man made CO2 emissions in Europe. Long-haul flights (>3 hours), for which there is virtually no substitute, account for 13% of flights, but 60% of fuel burn. Flights shorter than 1 hour, which could possibly be substituted, represent 23% of flights, but only 4% of total fuel burn in Europe.

7.5.3 The average ATM fuel efficiency is estimated to be close to 94%. This is good news but means that there is limited scope for improvement from ANS.

7.5.4 Total ANS actionable CO2 are estimated to be around 6% of total aviation related emissions and account therefore of some 0.2% of total CO2 emissions in Europe. Due to inherent necessary (safety) and desired (noise, capacity) limitations, the ANS actionable inefficiencies cannot be reduced to zero.

7.5.5 The extension of the horizontal en-route flight path is the main component (3.6% of total fuel burn) followed by delays in the terminal area (1.1% of total fuel burn).

7.5.6 Significant fuel efficiency improvements could be realised by optimising arrival flows into main airports. In the short term, high priority should be given (1) to the optimisation of the route network and (2) to the implementation of arrival managers at main airports. In the longer term (SESAR), the focus should move to a more integrated management of the flight trajectory geared to optimising arrival time.

7.5.7 Noise and local air quality are major concerns of residents in the vicinity of major airports. The implementation of local restrictions implies complex trade-offs between noise, emissions, capacity and safety which need to take into account local specificities.

7.5.8 The implementation of Airport Collaborative Decision Making (CDM) at more European airports would help to improve taxi efficiency and hence local air quality and improve the accuracy and timeliness of information locally and at network level.

Chapter 8: Cost-effectiveness

PRR 2009 87 Chapter 8: Cost-effectiveness

8 Cost-effectiveness


The PRC cost-effectiveness target proposed back in 2003 (i.e. -14% decrease in unit costs for the period 2003-2008) has been achieved. The positive traffic growth during the 2003-2008 period has greatly contributed to this achievement, along with greater cost-effectiveness awareness among a majority of ANSPs.

The economic downturn, which became apparent in summer 2008, has affected the aviation community throughout 2009 with unprecedented severity. As a result of the significant decrease in traffic, en-route unit costs are planned to increase sharply in 2009 and 2010. Greater flexibility is required for ANSPs to adjust to these unfavourable economic conditions.

Several European ANSPs reacted and implemented cost-containment measures for 2009 and 2010 to smooth the impact of the traffic downturn on airspace users. It is important that these measures effectively result into actual 2009 and 2010 costs lower than planned, without compromising the provision of future ATC capacity.

The current economic crisis clearly shows the limits of the full cost-recovery regime where the under-recoveries generated in 2008 and 2009 will have to be borne by airspace users in future years.

In the context of SES II, the EC is developing Implementing Rules on the performance scheme and also amending the Implementing Rules on the Charging Scheme. These Implementing Rules foresee the introduction of an incentive scheme based on a risk-sharing mechanism and on the principle of determined costs. This should contribute to better incentivise performance improvements and balance risks between ANSPs and airspace users.

The transparency of terminal ANS costs charged to airspace users is gradually improving with the setting of the 2010 terminal navigation charges according to the EC Charging Scheme Regulation. The PRC considers that, in the context of SES II performance scheme, it is important to start effective monitoring of terminal ANS cost-effectiveness in order to pave the way for the setting of future EU-wide cost-efficiency targets.

8.1 Introduction 8.1.1 In 2008, total en-route and terminal ANS costs amounted to some €8 630M.

Around 80% of these costs relate to the provision of en-route ANS;

Around 20% relate to the provision of terminal ANS.

En-route ANS costs

ATM/CNS

Payments to regulatory & gov. authorities

MET

EUROCONTROL

€ 5 830 M

€ 340 M

€ 90 M

€ 530 M

€ 6 790 M

Terminal ANS costs

ATM/CNS

Payments to regulatory & gov. authorities

MET

€ 1 740 M

€ 80 M

€ 20 M

€ 1 840 M

EN-route ANS costs

79%

Terminal ANS costs

21%

Gate-to-gate ANS costs (European level) 2008

€ 8 630 M

Source: EUROCONTROL/ PRC

Figure 102: Breakdown of gate-to-gate ANS costs, 2008


8.1.2 En-route ANS costs can be broken down into ATM/CNS, MET, EUROCONTROL and payment to regulatory and national authorities as shown in Figure 102. The aggregation of the en-route cost and traffic data provided by the various States for the purposes of the Enlarged Committee for Route Charges allows computing the en-route cost-effectiveness KPI for the EUROCONTROL Area. The analysis on the en-route cost-effectiveness is presented in Sections 8.2-8.5.

8.1.3 For the first time in the PRR, data on terminal ANS costs (reported to the EC by EU Member States in accordance with EC Regulation 1796/2006 [Ref. 33]) are used in order to provide a first overview and assessment of terminal ANS cost-effectiveness. The analysis on the terminal ANS cost-effectiveness is presented in Section 8.6.

8.1.4 Finally, for the purposes of benchmarking ANSPs performance and comparing like with like, the PRC is monitoring since 2001 a gate-to-gate cost-effectiveness KPI which focuses on ATM/CNS costs incurred by ANSPs. A dedicated benchmarking report is available (ACE 2008) and highlights of the main results are presented in Section 8.7.

8.2 En-route cost-effectiveness KPI for EUROCONTROL Area 8.2.1 The en-route cost-effectiveness KPI is obtained by dividing the total real en-route costs

(i.e. deflated costs) used to compute the Route Charges by the number of kilometres charged to airspace users. This information is derived from Member States’ submissions for the purposes of the EUROCONTROL Enlarged Committee for Route Charges31.

8.2.2 Figure 103 summarises the main relevant cost-effectiveness data and shows the changes in the cost-effectiveness KPI32 between 2003 and 2011 for the EUROCONTROL Area. The year 2008 is the latest for which actual figures are available at the time of this analysis.

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009P 2010P 2011P 08/03 11/08Contracting States (Route Charges System) 30 30 31 31 31 34 34 34 34 30 34Total en-route ANS costs (M€2008) 5.843 6.074 6.171 6.241 6.407 6.662 6.812 6.733 6.924 10% 4%

National costs (M€2008) 5.277 5.502 5.512 5.567 5.733 6.002 6.115 6.058 6.264 9% 4%EUROCONTROL Maastricht (M€2008) 125 125 122 124 129 128 147 139 146 3% 14%EUROCONTROL Agency (Parts I & IX) (M€2008) 440 447 536 550 545 532 550 537 513 17% -5%

Km charged (Million) 6.589 7.047 7.472 7.823 8.321 8.851 8.567 8.539 8.818 28% 0%Real unit costs (€2008/km) 0,89 0,86 0,83 0,80 0,77 0,75 0,80 0,79 0,79 -14% 4%

Figure 103: En-route ANS cost-effectiveness KPI for EUROCONTROL Area (€2008 prices)

8.2.3 In 2008, the en-route real unit cost for the European ANS system was €0.75 per km. Given that its value was €0.89 per km in 2003, this implies that between 2003 and 2008, real unit costs decreased by -14% (i.e. -2.9% per annum).

8.2.4 This means that the notional target set by the PRC (i.e. reduction of unit costs by -3% per annum for the period 2003-2008) has been reached, which is a positive achievement. This performance improvement directly translates into cumulative “savings” of some €3 billion with respect to constant 2003 unit costs. Figure 103 shows that the favourable traffic increase between 2003 and 2008 (+28%) contributed to the unit costs reduction, during the period, but undoubtedly better cost control and greater cost-effectiveness

31 The en-route ANS cost data provided in Figure 102 (i.e. 6 662 M€ for 2008) differ from the information provided in Figure 103 (i.e. 6 810 M€ for 2008). The data provided in Figure 102 reflects the information provided by ANSPs in the context of the ACE Benchmarking analysis (see Section 8.7). The discrepancy between the two data sets is mainly due to the fact that the ACE data set also includes information for States which were not technically integrated in the Route Charges System in 2008 (i.e. Ukraine, Estonia and Latvia).

32 Note that the growth rates displayed in the last two columns of Figure 103 are computed for consistent samples of Member States for which a time series was available (i.e. 31 over the 2003-2008 period and 36 over the 2008-2011 period).


awareness have also played a significant role in this performance improvement.

8.2.5 The Provisional Council (PC 28, November 2007) adopted its objectives for 2008, including an efficiency objective to “Reduce the European average real "en-route" unit cost per km by 3% per annum until 2010, whilst maintaining or improving the current level of service delivered.” In other words, this would correspond to a reduction of the real en-route unit costs of -6% on the period 2008-2010 (see dark arrow in Figure 104 above). Figure 104 indicates that the Pan-European target adopted by the PC will not be met by 2010.

-1.0%5.5%-2.0%

-3.5%-3.5%

-4.3%-2.8%

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.019

99

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

P

2010

P

2011

P

2012

P

2013

P

2014

P

Tot

al e

n-ro

ute

AN

S c

osts

(€2

008)

/ km

100

120

140

160

180

200

220

Costs Per Km Total Costs (1999= index 100) Traff ic (1999=index 100)

All States in CRCO system Source : EUROCONTROL

PRC notional target PC adopted target

Figure 104: Real en-route unit costs per km (KPI), total costs and traffic

8.2.6 Figure 104 shows that the decreasing trend in unit costs significantly decelerated in 2008. This is clearly the end of a positive business cycle for the European ANS system. Real en-route unit costs are planned to increase by +5.5% in 2009. It is important to note that this planned en-route unit costs increase (Figure 104) is due: (a) to a forecast increase of en-route costs by +2.3% and (b) to a forecast decrease in traffic volumes of -3.2%. However, actual 2009 traffic data shows that the decrease in traffic volumes was worse than planned by the States which means that if actual 2009 costs are not revised downwards, the en-route unit costs increase in 2009 will be much higher than indicated in Figure 104.

8.2.7 This is definitively a more pessimistic outlook than in November 2008 plans where en-route unit costs were planned to remain constant between 2008 and 2009 as shown in Figure 105.

+9.3%+9.5%

+9.3%+7.1%+6.5%-0.4%

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

2008A 2009P 2010P 2011P 2012P 2013P

€ 20

08 p

er k

m

Unit Costs planned in Nov. 2008 Unit Costs planned in Nov. 2009

-1.9%-2.1%-2.1%-3.6%

-1.1%-2.1%

-10.3%-10.6%-10.4%

-10.0%-7.2%-1.7%

4 000

5 000

6 000

7 000

8 000

2008 2009P 2010P 2011P 2012P 2013P

En-

rout

e na

tiona

l cos

ts

(M€2

008)

7 000

9 000

11 000

13 000

15 000

Kilo

met

res

(M)

Costs planned in Nov. 2008 Costs planned in Nov. 2009

Traffic planned in Nov. 2008 Traffic planned in Nov. 2009

Figure 105: Comparison of real en-route unit costs (data planned in Nov ‘08 & Nov ‘09)


8.2.8 The chart displayed on the left-hand side of Figure 105 shows the percentage changes between the unit costs planned in November 2008 and the information provided in November 2009. Compared to November 2008 plans, the unit cost profile for 2009-2013 has been revised upwards by some 7-9%.

8.2.9 The chart on the right-hand side of Figure 105 shows that compared to November 2008 plans, the traffic projected for 2009 onwards has been significantly revised downwards by some 7-10% (red bars) reflecting the current economic downturn. This is the main driver for the change in the unit costs profile between November 2008 and November 2009. On the other hand, the right-hand side of Figure 105 indicates that compared to November 2008 plans, the costs projected for 2009 onwards have been revised downwards by a much smaller magnitude (blue bars), for example -1.1% for 2009 and -3.6% for 2010. Each percentage reduction of the en-route cost-base amounts to some €70M.

8.2.10 Undoubtedly, the recent economic downturn is having a significant impact on the aviation industry and in particular on airspace users which are subject to strong commercial costs pressures and are forced to promptly cut costs in order to preserve their financial viability. In those circumstances, several European ANSPs are also implementing short-term and medium term cost-containment measures so that the loss of revenues due to the traffic shortfall do not automatically translate into an increase of future en-route charges (see CANSO Communication in April 2009 [Ref. 34]).

8.2.11 In May 2009, the European Commission requested Member States to provide the list of the cost-containment measures for 2009 and 2010. A majority of States/ANSPs disclosed this information for the purposes of the Enlarged Committee for Route Charges meeting held in June 2009. This information is summarised in Figure 106 below, which makes a distinction between genuine structural ANSPs measures aimed at containing or reducing the cost-base (green columns) and temporary measures from the State/shareholder to reduce charges33 (blue column).

Improved shift planning

Enhanced management of overtime

Change pension scheme for new recruits

Increase retirement age

Review staffing needs for support functions

Pay freeze for top executives

Postpone recruitment

Curtail travel

Postpone training

Review property needs. Sell surplus assets.

Improved procurement processes

Extend life of technical systems

Review investment plan

ATCOproductivity

ATCOemployment

costs

Other operating

costs

Capital-related costs

Critical review of plans

Critical review of operational processes

Rationalise ACCs and other operational units

Across-the-board areas of improvement for ANSPs

Seek improvements through cooperation (FABs)

More rigorous budgetary control

ANSP seeks additional revenue for inadequately funded services

State funds specific elements of the cost base

Use stabilisation fund or other reserves to smooth unit rate fluctuations

Reduced requirement for return on State-owned equity

Cross-subsidies and

transfers

Figure 106: Summary of main cost-containment measures implemented by States

33 In addition to these cost-containment measures, there are also States that have postponed the collection of a part of the 2009 and 2010 charges to future years. These will translate into under-recoveries to be borne by airspace users in future years.


8.2.12 On 1 January 2009, there were thirty-six States in the Route Charges System. Out of these, 23 States provided information on cost containment measures to be implemented in 2009 and 2010. No information was provided during the June and November 2009 sessions of the Enlarged Committee for Bosnia Herzegovina, Greece, Hungary, Malta, Moldova, Serbia, Montenegro, Slovak Republic, Slovenia and Armenia (which was technically integrated on 1 March 2009 in the Route Charges System).

8.2.13 There is a wide difference in the quantity and in the quality of the information provided. As a result, at this stage it is not possible to precisely identify the total amounts of actual savings that can be expected at European system level during the coming years. On the basis of the data in Figure 105 the downwards cost revision of -1.1% for 2009 and -3.6% for 2010 can be valued at some €80M for 2009 and €245M in 2010 for the European system. Further details for the five largest States/ANSPs are discussed in § 8.4.12-8.4.18.

8.2.14 It is important that, due to the uncertainty surrounding the duration of the economic downturn, these measures are effectively implemented and that the planned cost savings really materialise and result into actual 2009 and 2010 costs lower than planned. It is also important that these measures do not compromise the provision of future ATC capacity. The decrease in traffic offers some breathing space for ANSPs to prioritise the projects with the most promising capacity outcomes, taking into account trade-offs, so that there is a better match between capacity and demand when traffic growth will bounce back.

8.2.15 One of the measures identified in the left-hand of Figure 106 relates to the use of reserves to smooth unit rates fluctuations. This can be done when an ANSP is sufficiently capitalised. Figure 107 shows the breakdown of the balance sheet for European ANS at the end of 2008. A feature of the balance sheet is that ANSPs’ equity (48%) substantially exceeds their long-term debt (35%).

ANSPs asset structure ANSPs liability structure

Current assets33%

Long-term financial assets

6%

NBV fixed assets under construction

12%

NBV fixed assets in operation

49% Current liabilities

17%

Long-term

liabilities35%

Capital and

reserves48%

Figure 107: ANSPs balance sheet structure, 2008

8.2.16 Another feature is a 2.5 ratio of current assets to current liabilities (i.e. the “current ratio”, an indicator of liquidity). Even when using a more stringent measure of liquidity, such as the “quick ratio” (retaining only debtors and cash assets instead of all current assets) the ratio is 1.8. It indicates that, on average, ANSPs would be able to pay 180% of their current debt by only using their most liquid assets.


0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

9.0

10.0

Ae

na

(SP

)

AN

S C

R (

CZ

)

AT

SA

Bul

garia

(B

G)

Aus

tro

Con

trol

(A

T)

Bel

goco

ntro

l (B

E)

Cro

atia

Con

trol

(H

R)

DF

S (

DE

)

DH

MI

(TR

)

DS

NA

(F

R)

EA

NS

(E

E)

EN

AV

(IT

)

Hu

nga

roC

ontr

ol (

HU

)

IAA

(IE

)

LFV

/AN

S S

wed

en (

SE

)

LG

S (

LV)

LPS

(S

K)

LV

NL

(NL

)

MA

TS

(M

T)

MK

CA

A (

MK

)

Mol

dAT

SA

(M

D)

NA

TA

Alb

ania

(A

L)

NA

TS

(U

K)

NA

V P

ortu

ga

l (F

IR L

isb

oa)

(PT

)

NA

VIA

IR (

DK

)

Oro

Nav

igac

ija (

LT)

PA

NS

A (

PL)

RO

MA

TS

A (

RO

)

Sky

guid

e (C

H)

Slo

veni

a C

ontr

ol (

SI)

SM

AT

SA

(R

S)

UkS

AT

SE

(U

A)

MU

AC

Avi

nor

(NO

)

DC

AC

Cyp

rus

(CY

)

Fin

avi

a (

FI)

HC

AA

(G

R)

Cu

rre

nt

Ass

ets

/ C

urr

en

t li

ab

ilit

ies

0

3

6

9

12

15

18

21

24

27

30

Mo

nth

s o

f re

ven

ues

Debtors and cash at bank Stock and other current assets Ratio quick assets to total revenues

Figure 108: Liquidity ratios per ANSP, 2008

8.2.17 Figure 108 shows liquidity ratios for each ANSP in 2008 according to the balance-sheet data that was provided in the Specification for Information Disclosure34. There are significant differences in the financial situation of ANSPs and some might be due to different accounting policy. In several cases the “quick ratio” (see the blue part of the bar) is extremely high, suggesting that these ANSPs have been able to build up “war chests”, even under full cost recovery. Indeed, the cost recovery principles allow for a reasonable return on equity. This return appears in accounting terms as profit. If this profit is retained, rather than being distributed as tax and dividends, or used to cross-subsidise other activities, then reserves are built up.

8.2.18 In the context of the current traffic downturn, these reserves could, and sometimes are, used to finance the revenue shortfall and therefore to limit increases in unit rates.

8.2.19 Wherever the “quick ratio” is below 1 (9 ANSPs according to Figure 108) this means that the value of current liabilities exceeds the value of debtors and cash assets. At face value, these ANSPs could face difficulties to draw cash to finance large under-recoveries.

8.2.20 In order to give an insight about the magnitude of the ANSPs quick assets, Figure 108 also shows the ratio of ANSPs quick assets to the annual revenues (see red dots). This ratio is expressed in terms of months of revenues. For example, ANS CR quick assets represent more than 3 months of revenues35. Figure 108 indicates that NATA Albania is the ANSP with the highest quick ratio in 2008. This high ratio reflects an exceptional situation due to delays in the implementation of the National Airspace Modernisation Programme, where cash drawn from a bank loan to finance the investments is recorded as cash assets in NATA Albania balance-sheet.

34 At the time of writing (April 2010), complete and consistent balance-sheet data were not provided by HCAA, Finavia, DCAC Cyprus and Avinor. MUAC balance-sheet is part of the EUROCONTROL Agency Annual Accounts.

35 Considering the very high and effective rate of route charges recovery (some 98% of 2008 charges were recovered by the Central Route Charges Office by March 2009), one would not expect large cash (or quick assets) needs (typically not larger than 3-4 months of revenues).


8.3 SES II performance scheme 8.3.1 Except the UK, all EUROCONTROL Member States operate under a full cost recovery

regime for en-route ANS. The current economic crisis shows the limitation of the full cost recovery regime. All the under-recoveries generated in 2008 and 2009 will have to be paid back by airspace users in 2010 and 2011, or possibly spread out over a longer period.

8.3.2 In a communication, CANSO [Ref. 34] stated that “the full cost recovery is not designed for an economic downturn”. CANSO also stated that “ANSPs are ready to accept greater financial risk if governments endorse appropriate governance, sound financial management and a fair balance between risk and reward”.

8.3.3 On the other hand, during the PRC-led consultation in preparation for the implementation of the performance scheme36, airspace users’ representatives have repeatedly stated that ANSPs should bear the full risks and retain the full rewards for superior performance.

8.3.4 The SES II regulation [Ref. 2] was adopted by the European Parliament and the Council on 21 October 2009. The main provisions entered into force on 4 December 2009. Article 11 of the amended Framework Regulation refers to a “performance scheme” which should provide an opportunity for ANSPs to further improve their performance. The performance scheme described in Article 11 will apply to the 27 EU Member States and associated States. In this context, no doubt that the pressure to genuinely improve cost-effectiveness is high on the agenda of airspace users’ expectations.

8.3.5 In the current full cost recovery mechanism, all the risks are borne by airspace users, including the costs of non optimal quality of service. ANSPs are not sufficiently incentivized to deliver better cost-efficiency performance since they have to return any over-recoveries, even if these are the result of cost savings.

8.3.6 The European Commission is developing Implementing Rules on the performance scheme which are expected to be adopted in 2010. These Implementing Rules will include inter-alia “general principles for the setting up by Member States of the incentive scheme”. In addition, the European Commission is amending the Implementing Rules on Charging scheme with a view to departing from the current full cost recovery regime.

8.3.7 The PRC considers that a financial incentive scheme should:

not be linked with the achievement of safety performance targets to avoid undesirable behaviour such as the underreporting of safety incidents;

incentivise ANSP cost-efficiency and quality of service performance improvements with associated financial rewards and penalties;

effectively balance risks between airspace users and ANSPs, by limiting the exposure of:

- ANSPs to traffic risks (traffic shortfall leading to lower revenues) given that traffic is largely exogenous;

- airspace users to cost risks (higher costs arising from bad management performance or external factors such as new legal obligations).

- be part of the regulatory environment, known in advance by all stakeholders and applicable during the entire reference period.

8.3.8 CANSO/ANSPs asked for “a common and consistent framework to be used across Europe for incentives and corrective measures with sufficient flexibility for the first

36 Consultation within the Performance Scheme Focus Group (PSFG) during winter 2009/spring 2010.


Reference Period to ensure acceptance by all States” [Ref. 34]. The PRC also considers that commonality of the incentive scheme is important so that it can be applied to all EU Member States, independently of their governance arrangements, while ensuring greater transparency and manageability of the scheme at European level.

8.4 En-route ANS cost-effectiveness KPI at State level 8.4.1 The changes in en-route unit costs at European system level (see Figure 104) results from

contrasted levels and trends across EUROCONTROL Member States37, hence the importance of considering the State level view.

8.4.2 When looking across States, the levels of unit costs should be seen in the light of traffic volumes and exogenous factors such as local economic and operational conditions, which considerably vary across States. This requires some caution when comparing results and drawing conclusions in terms of economic efficiency.

8.4.3 Because of their relative importance in relation to the whole European system (65% of total costs) and for conciseness purposes, this section focuses on the five largest States. More detailed analysis on the changes in unit costs for smaller States is displayed in Annex VII. Figure 109 displays the changes in real en-route unit costs for the five largest States38 between 2004 and 2013 according to the information provided during the November 2009 session of the Enlarged Committee for Route Charges (see blue line). Figure 109 also shows the changes in en-route unit costs planned in November 2008 (see red line).

Exchange rates

Following the economic downturn, exchange rates have been extremely volatile in many European countries in 2008 and in 2009. As a result, time-series comparisons of unit costs can be affected by variations in exchange rates. To cancel this impact, in this Report changes in real unit costs are assessed in national currency using national inflation rates. Then, all national currencies are converted into Euro using the 2008 exchange rate. Therefore, the unit costs disclosed for any State in this Report differ from the figures provided in previous PRRs. For example, the level of the UK 2008 en-route unit costs in Figure 109 is affected by the 14% depreciation of the UK£ compared to the €.

8.4.4 First, Figure 109 indicates that there are significant differences in the 2008 level of actual unit costs across the five largest States, although the operational and economic environments are relatively similar39. In 2008, the en-route unit costs range from €0.98 per km for Spain Canaries to €0.66 per km in France: a factor of 1.4 at face value. The level of en-route unit costs for Spain Canarias raises questions given its operational (i.e. airspace complexity) and economic (i.e. cost of living) environments.

8.4.5 Second, Figure 109 shows the changes in en-route unit costs for the five largest States. Between 2004 and 2008, en-route real unit costs decreased for Germany (-20%), the United Kingdom (-16%), Spain Canarias (-11%), Italy (-13%) and France (-5%). On the other hand, en-route real unit costs increased in Spain Continental between 2004 and 2008 (+4%, see Figure 109). The main drivers for the changes in ANSPs unit costs

37 These unit costs reflect en-route charges passed on to the airspace users by the various States. These charges include costs relating to ATS and MET provision, regulators, and to the EUROCONTROL. See also footnote 40 for the specific case of the UK.

38 Note that for the purpose of Route Charges, Spain has two different unit rates and unit costs (Continental & Canarias).

39 However, it should be noted that in the UK the en-route ANSP (NATS) does not operate under the full cost-recovery regime but under a regime of independent economic regulation. Therefore, the costs reported by UK to the Enlarged Committee for Route Charges can differ from the charges collected from en-route airspace users. For comparability purposes, Figure 109 shows the en-route costs charged to UK airspace users. These costs are computed as the product of the chargeable service units with the UK unit rate expressed in £. Planned costs are converted into Euros using the planned exchange rates provided by UK in their submission to the Enlarged Committee for Route Charges. Unit costs are obtained by division of these costs with the chargeable km.


between 2004 and 2008 are analysed in Section 8.7 below.

0.60

0.65

0.70

0.75

0.80

0.85

0.90

0.95

1.00

1.05

1.10

1.15

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

Spain Canarias Spain Continental United Kingdom Italy Germany France

Eu

ro 2

00

8 / k

mUnit costs planned in Nov. 2008 Actual unit costs Unit costs planned in Nov. 2009

Figure 109: Trend in en-route ANS real unit costs for the five largest States (2004-2013) in

€2008

8.4.6 Figure 109 indicates that, except for Italy, all the largest States en-route unit costs are planned to increase in 2009. This is particularly the case in Germany (+16%), France (+13%), Spain Canarias (+13%) and Spain Continental (+9%).

8.4.7 The unit costs forward-looking profile provided by all the five largest States in November 2009 (see blue dotted line in Figure 109) were revised upwards especially for the years 2009 and 2010. In order to understand the drivers for differences in planned profiles, Figure 110 above compares the costs and traffic planned by the five largest States for the purposes of the Enlarged Committee meeting in November 2009 with the plans provided in November 2008.

8.4.8 Figure 110 clearly indicates that all the largest States anticipated the impact of the economic downturn on the traffic growth by adjusting their traffic forecast downwards in November 2009 (orange bars below the orange line). In November 2009, Spain significantly revised downwards its planned traffic volumes (i.e. around -20% for the period 2009-201340) reflecting the fact that the traffic forecast used in November 2008 was over estimated, due to a decision taken in support of airspace users to maintain the unit rate in 2009 according to the data presented to the June 2008 Enlarged Committee41. All else being equal, this over-estimation of the traffic forecast will result in under-recoveries to be borne by airspace users in future years.

8.4.9 Figure 110 also indicates that for France, Germany, Spain Canarias and, to a lesser extent, the UK, 2008 actual costs were lower than the plans made in November 2008. This is undoubtedly the sign of tighter cost control in these States.

40 Note that Spain presented a new traffic forecast in the context of the March 2009 Enlarged Committee session. This new profile was significantly lower than the planned data provided in November 2008. As a result, compared to the forecasts made in March 2009, planned traffic volumes have been revised downwards in November 2009 by some -10% for the period 2009-2013.

41 As referred in the Action Paper provided by the Spanish Ministerio de Fomento for the purposes of the Enlarged Committee for Route Charges (CE-R, March 2009).


-16%-14%-13%-10%-3%

0%

-29%-28%-26%-24%-20%-7%

500

1 000

1 500

2 000

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

En-

rout

e na

tiona

l cos

ts

(M€2

008)

0

500

1 000

1 500

Kilo

met

res

(M)



Spain Continental

-5% -9% -13% -16% -17% -18%

-6%-24% -28% -30% -31% -33%

50

100

150

200

250

300

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

En-

rout

e na

tiona

l cos

ts

(M€2

008)

0

50

100

150

200

250

Kilo

met

res

(M)



Spain Canarias

-7%-6%-5%-5%-2%-2%

-9%-9%-10%-12%

-1%-3%

200

400

600

800

1 000

1 200

1 400

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

En-

rout

e na

tiona

l cos

ts

(M€2

008)

0

200

400

600

800

1 000

1 200

Kilo

met

res

(M)



Italy

-5%-5%-4%-6%-4%-4%

-11%-11%-11%-11%-10%-2%

0

250

500

750

1 000

1 250

1 500

1 750

2 000

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013E

n-ro

ute

natio

nal c

osts

(M

€200

8)

0

250

500

750

1 000

1 250

1 500

1 750

2 000

Kilo

met

res

(M)



France

-1% -7%

4%6% 5% 4%

-2%-8% -9% -10% -11% -10%

500

750

1 000

1 250

1 500

1 750

2 000

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

En-

rout

e na

tiona

l cos

ts

(M€2

008)

0

250

500

750

1 000

1 250

1 500

Kilo

met

res

(M)



United Kingdom

CP2 CP3

-3%-3%-4%-8%-1%-5%

-11%-12%-8%-7%-6%

-1%

500

750

1 000

1 250

1 500

1 750

2 000

2 008 2 009 2 010 2 011 2 012 2 013

En-

rout

e na

tiona

l cos

ts

(M€2

008)

0

250

500

750

1 000

1 250

1 500

Kilo

met

res

(M)



Germany

Figure 110: Changes in planned en-route costs and traffic for the five largest States (€2008)

8.4.10 The costs profile provided by the four of the five largest States for the period 2009-2013 were revised downwards in November 2009. This indicates a degree of reactivity to the sudden and significant decrease in traffic experienced at the end of 2008.

8.4.11 As mentioned in Footnote 39, the planned costs provided for the UK in Figure 110 are computed as the product of the expected number of chargeable service units with the UK planned unit rates. Since in the UK the en-route ANSP (NATS) does not operate under the full cost-recovery regime but under a regime of independent economic regulation, the data reported in Figure 110 (blue line and blue bars) reflect planned revenues rather than planned costs. It should be emphasised that in both November 2008 and November 2009 the data provided for the years 2008-2010 are in line with the UK CAA proposal for CP2. On the other hand, the UK CAA’s proposals for CP3 have not yet been determined so the planned costs data provided for the year 2011 onwards (on the basis of NATS’ Business Plan) are not directly comparable with the information provided for the years 2008-2010. The cost increases projected by NATS during 2011-13 reflect reduced operating costs being offset by increasing pensions costs and an increase in the cost of capital.


8.4.12 In June 2009, for the purposes of the Enlarged Committee meeting on Route Charges, the five largest States provided the list of the cost-containment measures that will be implemented from 2009 onwards. For the two years period 2009-2010, the five largest States plan to save some €400M. On an annual basis, this represents some 5% of their total national cost-bases.

8.4.13 NATS implemented a cost reduction programme on operating costs (reduction of some €50M) by end 2010 (equivalent to some 7% of the NATS en-route annual cost-base). NATS also plan to save some €300M in CP3 (2011-2015) with significant savings arising from a change in pension arrangements42.

8.4.14 The cost-containment measures implemented by DSNA for the 2009 are associated with a reduction in non-staff operating costs (€5M) and in capital related costs (€25M), together amounting to some 3% of the annual en-route cost-base. Furthermore, staff reductions negotiated in the last collective agreement would generate some €20M of savings per annum.

8.4.15 In Spain, the State will bear some 10% of the en-route cost-base (€84.7M) in order to maintain the 2010 unit rate at the same level as in 2009: EUROCONTROL costs (i.e. €62.5M) will not be charged to airspace users and costs relating to MET and supervisory activities were reduced by €21.8M43. Furthermore, Aena implemented specific cost containment measures in 2009 which are expected to bring savings of some €37M (mostly relating to productivity improvements and reduction of ATCO overtime hours).

8.4.16 In 2009 and 2010, Italy will use its special reserve (“stabilisation fund”) to finance part of the en-route cost-base. Furthermore, a cost cutting programme is expected to generate savings amounting to some €30M in 2010 (some 5% of the annual en-route cost-base).

8.4.17 The overall objective of the cost-containment measures implemented by DFS in 2009 is to save some €35M (some 5% of the en-route annual cost-base). These savings would arise from a reduction of operating expenses and depreciation costs. DFS also launched a cost-efficiency plan for 2010 in which €50M are expected to be saved compared to 2009 plans. Germany also decided to reduce DFS’ return on equity from 8% in 2008 to 2.3% in 2010.

8.4.18 Clearly, due to their relative weights, it is important that these cost-containment measures be implemented by the five largest States and that the planned decreases in en-route cost-bases for 2009 and 2010 materialise.

8.4.19 The right-hand side of Figure 111 indicates that overall for the remaining 25 EUROCONTROL Member States, costs forecasted in November 2008 for the period 2009-2013 were revised upwards in November 2009 plans. This clearly contrasts with the downwards revision of costs for the five largest States (see the left-hand side of Figure 111). The sharp economic downturn requires all States/ANSPs to ensure that their plans are consistent with the new economic and traffic environment.

42 A defined contribution scheme has been proposed by NATS to newly-recruited staff (instead of a defined benefit scheme). Following this change, around €1B are planned to be saved over the next 15 years.

43 It should be noted that a specific law (Ley 9/2010) has been adopted in Spain on 15 April 2010 in order to address some structural performance issues in Aena.


-6.0%-5.6%-5.0%-5.6%-3.2%-2.5%

-14.5%-14.4%-13.3%-12.5%-9.3%-2.8%

3 000

4 000

5 000

6 000

7 000

8 000

9 000

10 000

2008 2009P 2010P 2011P 2012P 2013P

En-

rout

e na

tiona

l cos

ts

(M€2

008)

0

1 000

2 000

3 000

4 000

5 000

6 000

7 000

Kilo

met

res

(M)



Five largest States (aggregated data)

-1.3%

2.9% 0.5% 3.5% 5.0% 6.6%

-0.1% -4.2%-6.3%

-6.3%-5.0%

-4.1%

2 000

2 500

3 000

3 500

4 000

4 500

5 000

2008 2009P 2010P 2011P 2012P 2013P

En-

rout

e na

tiona

l cos

ts

(M€2

008)

2 000

2 500

3 000

3 500

4 000

4 500

5 000

Kilo

met

res

(M)

Costs planned in Nov. 2008 Costs planned in Jun. 2009

Traffic planned in Nov. 2008 Traffic planned in Jun. 2009

Remaining EUROCONTROL Member States

Figure 111: Changes in planned en-route costs and traffic for the five largest States versus

the remaining 25 States (€2008)

8.5 The components of en-route ANS costs (European and State level) 8.5.1 In June 2009, Member States provided

2008 actual en-route costs data according to the EC regulation laying down a Common Charging Scheme for ANS (EC regulation 1794/2006) [Ref. 33].

8.5.2 ANS costs are broken down according to the components indicated in Figure 112. Costs associated with the CNS infrastructure amount to some 18% of the total cost-base, while 65% directly relates to ATM. Supervision and other State costs represent some 2% of the total en-route cost-base in 2008. Typically, these costs relate to States’ regulatory and supervision functions (e.g. NSAs).

Com.7%

ATM65%

Surveillance7%

AIS2%

Supervision & other

State costs (incl. SAR)

2%

MET5%

Navigation4%

EURO CONTROL

Agency8%

Figure 112: Breakdown of en-route ANS costs at European system level (2008)

8.5.3 From an economic point of view, CNS costs (i.e. 18%) are likely to have different characteristics and drivers than ATM costs. CNS costs are infrastructure costs and as such are mainly fixed costs in the medium term.

8.5.4 Each of the ANS components are analysed below in order to identify the drivers for the European States performance in terms of cost-effectiveness.

ATM/CNS PROVISION COSTS (INCLUDING AIS & MAASTRICHT COSTS)

8.5.5 The bulk of total ANS costs (i.e. some 88%) relate to the provision of ATM/CNS. These costs are largely under the direct control and responsibility of ANSPs. They are linked to the capacity to be provided for a safe and efficient conduct of traffic demand. ATM/CNS provision costs form the basis of the ANSP cost-effectiveness benchmarking analysis presented in Section 8.6 of this chapter.

AERONAUTICAL MET COSTS

8.5.6 Figure 113 shows the trend at European level of MET costs recovered through en-route charges between 2004 and 2010 for a consistent sample of 28 EUROCONTROL Member States for which data for a time-series analysis was available


8.5.7 At European level, en-route MET costs, i.e. some 5% of en-route ANS costs, amounted to some €325M in 2008. It should be noted that the en-route MET costs decreased by -9% in real terms between 2004 and 2008. This is an appreciable contribution to the en-route ANS cost-effectiveness improvement. This also indicates that trends in en-route MET costs can be decoupled from trends in traffic growth.

0

100

200

300

400

M€

(200

8)

MET costs (M€ 2008) 359 342 328 324 325 328 325

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

-5% -4% -1% 0% -1%1%

Figure 113: Changes in en-route MET costs at European level (2004-2010) in €2008

8.5.8 The-9% decrease at European system level is mainly due to decreases in Italy and Germany (-22% and -35%, respectively) where MET costs represent 15% and 10% of the total MET costs at European system level, respectively.

8.5.9 It should be noted that the organisational and operational responsibility for provision of MET services varies by State. In a majority of cases these are provided by the national MET institution/authority, however in several cases MET services are provided either wholly or partially by the en-route ATS provider (see Figure 114). Among the largest five States, only Italy has its en-route ATS provider which is also, albeit partially, responsible for MET services.

Lower Airspace

MET services provided internally

Figure 114: Arrangements for provision of MET

services

8.5.10 Figure 115 also shows that the share in en-route MET costs in total en-route national cost-base varies from 13% to 1%. The main drivers for such large differences include:

Differences in MET costs allocation between en-route and terminal ANS;

Differences in policy for charging MET costs to aviation (e.g. subsidies, allocation of core costs);

Genuine differences in MET infrastructure and levels of MET products and services44; and,

Genuine cost-effectiveness differences.

44 It should be noted that the UK MET costs includes the cost of the World Area Forecasting Centre (WAFC).


9.8%

7.8% 7.7% 7.6%7.2%

6.5% 6.5%5.9% 5.9% 5.9% 5.8% 5.8% 5.6%

4.6%4.2% 4.1% 4.1% 4.0% 4.0% 3.9% 3.8% 3.6%

1.8% 1.7%1.5% 1.5%

12.7%

3.5%

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

Mol

dova

Au

stri

a

Ital

y

Cyp

rus

Tur

key

Bul

garia

Sw

itze

rland

Mal

ta

Irel

and

Slo

veni

a

Fra

nce

Bel

giu

m/L

ux.

Gre

ece

Net

herla

nds

Uni

ted

Kin

gdom

Por

tug

al (

FIR

Lis

boa)

Sw

eden

Ger

man

y

Den

ma

rk

Spa

in C

anar

ias

Hun

gary

FY

RO

M

Spa

in C

ontin

enta

l

Fin

lan

d

Slo

vak

Rep

ublic

Cze

ch R

epu

blic

Alb

ania

Nor

way

Pro

port

ion

of M

ET

cos

ts in

to

tal e

n-r

ou

te c

osts

Figure 115: Share of en-route MET costs in total en-route national cost base (2008)

8.5.11 As highlighted in the 2004 PRC Report on aeronautical MET costs [Ref. 35], there is a need to establish a data flow in order to consistently measure MET products and services at European system level. This would increase transparency and would allow to compute the MET cost-effectiveness KPI which could be used to compare performance across MET providers.

EUROCONTROL AGENCY COSTS (EXCLUDING MUAC)

8.5.12 EUROCONTROL Agency costs can be split into two main categories: the EUROCONTROL cost base (Parts I and IX, €531.6M in 2008) and the CRCO costs (Part II, €18.2M in 2008).

8.5.13 In 2008, the EUROCONTROL Agency cost base (Parts I and IX) represents 7.8% of total European en-route ANS costs, which is lower than in 2007 (8.3%). As indicated in Figure 116 the relative share of EUROCONTROL Agency costs is expected to remain fairly constant in 2009 and 2010, below the 8% threshold.

7.8%7.9%7.8%8.3%

8.6%8.5%

7.2%

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009P 2010P

Past (Pensions) Benefit Obligations (PBO)

Pensions

EUROCONTROL Agency costs (excl. Pension Scheme + PBO)

Figure 116: EUROCONTROL Agency costs relative to total European en-route ANS costs

8.5.14 Figure 117 displays the breakdown of EUROCONTROL Agency costs per establishment and expenditure between 2004 and 2008.


2004 2005 2006 2007 2008%

08/04%

08/072004 2005 2006 2007 2008

% 08/04

% 08/07

CND/ASRO/MIL/HMU 205.7 215.3 226.1 220.2 232.4 13% 6% Staff costs 188.1 192.9 209.0 219.6 221.9 18% 1%Resources 68.2 73.5 71.5 71.1 68.6 1% -4% PBO 35.4 35.4 35.8 36.2 - 1%CFMU / EAD 99.8 113.5 111.7 119.9 119.9 20% 0% Pensions 20.7 48.6 65.2 69.2 69.4 236% 0%Institutional bodies 6.4 6.4 7.0 5.0 5.1 -21% 1% Operating costs 89.2 99.5 141.1 143.8 140.0 57% -3%Pension in charge of the budget 20.7 48.6 65.2 69.2 69.4 236% 0% Depreciation costs 93.0 107.8 59.4 45.7 56.5 -39% 24%PBO 35.4 35.4 35.8 36.2 - 1% Interest 9.7 8.6 6.8 7.2 7.5 -23% 5%Total Parts I & IX 400.8 492.7 516.8 521.2 531.6 33% 2% Total Parts I & IX 400.8 492.7 516.8 521.2 531.6 33% 2%Price Index 1.076 1.103 1.129 1.149 1.201 12% 4% Price Index 1.076 1.103 1.129 1.149 1.201 12% 4%Real costs (€2008) Total Parts I & IX

447.4 536.4 549.8 544.6 531.6 19% -2%Real costs (€2008) Total Parts I & IX

447.4 536.4 549.8 544.6 531.6 19% -2%

Type of expenditureEstablishmentYearly costs (M€) Yearly costs (M€)

Figure 117: EUROCONTROL Agency costs per establishment & expenditure (Parts I &

IX)45

8.5.15 Figure 117 shows that EUROCONTROL cost-base increased by 19% in real terms between 2004 and 2008. This increase is mainly due to the increase of pension related-costs, i.e. pensions charged to the budget and Pension Benefit Obligations (PBO).

8.5.16 Figure 117 also indicates that between 2007 and 2008, the total cost-base for the EUROCONTROL Agency decreased by -2% in real terms. This is the second consecutive year that the EUROCONTROL Agency costs decrease in real terms. It is also noteworthy that the 2008 actual EUROCONTROL Agency costs (i.e. €531.6M) are below the plans made in November 2007 (i.e. €536.3M which included the 98% cap).

8.5.17 Figure 117 indicates that the decrease in the EUROCONTROL cost-base is mainly due to the containment of staff costs (-3% in real terms) and the decrease of non-staff operating costs (-7% in real terms). On the other hand, Figure 117 shows that depreciation costs increased by +20% in real terms between 2007 and 2008. This increase is partly due to a larger depreciation of intangible assets (some €17M) in 2008 compared to previous years46.

8.5.18 Figure 118 below shows that the EUROCONTROL cost-base is planned to decrease by -5.9% for the period 2009-2013. The EUROCONTROL Agency decided to freeze its 2010 cost-base at 2008 levels. The right-hand side of Figure 118 indicates that in November 2009, compared to November 2008 plans, the EUROCONTROL costs projected for 2010 onwards have been revised downwards.

-3.1%-1.3%-1.3%-2.6%2.4%

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

2008 2009P 2010P 2011P 2012P 2013P

€M (

2008

pric

es)

-0.9%

0.0%

-5.6% -5.3% -6.7%-9.6%

200

300

400

500

600

2008 2009P 2010P 2011P 2012P 2013P

M€2

008


EUROCONTROL Agency (Parts I & IX)

Figure 118: EUROCONTROL costs forward-looking projections (Nov. 2008- Nov. 2009)

8.5.19 The EUROCONTROL Organisation is supporting the Agency in initiating a reorganisation process to be more in line with stakeholders’ expectations and with a new economic reality. This process should lead to genuine efficiency improvements and cost savings.

45 In Figure 116 and Figure 117 the item “Pensions” corresponds to the pensions charged to EUROCONTROL budget while the PBO results from the implementation of the 2004 pension reform to rebuild the Projected Benefit Obligations.

46 It is planned that by 2012 all the remaining intangible assets will be full depreciated.


8.6 Terminal ANS cost-effectiveness KPI for EU States 8.6.1 In November 2009, EU Member States provided 2008 actual terminal ANS costs data

according to the EC regulation laying down a Common Charging Scheme for ANS (EC regulation 1794/2006, [Ref. 33]). This is definitively a significant step forward towards greater transparency on these costs. This information is now analysed for the first time in a PRR to provide an overview and an initial assessment of terminal ANS cost-effectiveness.

8.6.2 EC regulation 1794/2006 [Ref. 33] covers both en-route and terminal ANS. It applies to all 27 EU States as well as associated States having signed specific agreement with the Community. Figure 119 displays the States covered by the Regulation as well as their status concerning the provision of terminal ANS data.

8.6.3 Data were not provided by Albania, Croatia, F.Y.R Macedonia, Serbia, Montenegro, Turkey and Ukraine which are not bound to SES regulations.

8.6.4 Furthermore, Art. 1(5) of the regulation indicates that Member States with airports handling less than 50 000 movements may decide not to apply the regulation.

TNC provided

TNC not provided as airports < 50 000 mvts

TNC not provided

Figure 119: Status of 2008 terminal ANS data provision

8.6.5 In accordance with this article, four States (Estonia, Latvia, Malta and Slovak Republic) did not provide any data. Luxembourg did not provide complete data for the period 2008-2013. Similarly, the associated States such Norway and Switzerland did not report terminal ANS costs according to the EC regulation 1794/2006.47

8.6.6 According to this Regulation, terminal ANS costs relate to the costs of:

Aerodrome control services, aerodrome FIS including air traffic advisory services and alerting services;

ATS relating to the approach and departure of aircraft within a certain distance of an airport on the basis of operational requirements; and,

An appropriate allocation of all other ANS components, reflecting a proportionate attribution between en-route and terminal services.

Scope of EC regulation 1794/2006

All airports above 150 000 commercial air transport movements48 are covered by this Regulation. Airports below 50 000 movements may be exempted at the discretion of States, while airports between 50 000 and 150 000 movements may only be exempted when they fulfil certain criteria related to the economic and regulatory environments in which they operate. In total, the Regulation covers around 215 airports within the Community, which represents some 74% of the total Community air transport movements.

47 For these reasons, terminal ANS costs analysed in this Section differ from the data reported in Figure 102 which relate to the 36 ANSPs which provide specific information to the PRC for benchmarking purposes (see Section 8.7).

48 Counted as the sum of take-offs and landings and calculated as the average over the previous three years.


8.6.7 Despite transparency improvements on terminal ANS costs at European level, there is still a great deal of diversity for the following main reasons:

Whereas harmonised processes and mechanisms for reporting ANS en-route costs and setting charges are well established, such processes for the determination of terminal ANS charges only started in November 2009 with the setting of the 2010 terminal navigation charges (Art 18(2) of EC regulation 1794/2006 [Ref. 33]);

The Regulation foresees a period of convergence towards a common formula for the computation of terminal service units between 2010 and 2015 allowing States to limit redistribution effects between airspace users. Therefore, the formula will not be fully harmonised before 2015, which makes it difficult to compare terminal unit rates until then;

The Regulation explicitly foresees the possibility to recover terminal ANS costs through other sources (e.g. cross subsidies such as revenues from other sources). For cost-effectiveness analysis and benchmarking purposes this requires having an understanding of, and making a distinction between “the costs to provide terminal ANS” and “the costs charged for terminal ANS”.

8.6.8 In 2008, terminal ANS costs for the 21 States that reported this information amount to some €1 500M (see also Annex IX). Figure 120 below provides the breakdown of terminal ANS costs by services (see left-hand side) and by categories (see right-hand side). By and large the cost breakdown is of the same order of magnitude as for en-route (see Figure 112).

Com.7%

ATM73%

Surveillance

6%

AIS2%

MET4%

Navigation7%

Supervision

& other (incl. SAR)

1%

Other operating

costs18%

Staff costs66%

Cost of capital

5%

Exceptional items1.2%

Depreciation

9%

Figure 120: Breakdown of terminal ANS costs at European system level (2008)

8.6.9 The unit costs for terminal ANS at European system level are obtained by dividing the total real terminal ANS costs by the number of IFR airport movements. Figure 121 summarises the main data used to compute the terminal unit costs for 2008. According to the available data in Figure 121, the unit costs for an IFR movement are €115. Unfortunately, the data required to compute a 5-years planned profile of terminal ANS unit costs at European system level was not available for Belgium, Ireland, Portugal, Romania, Sweden and the UK.

2008 2009P 2010P 2011P 11/08

States (reporting terminal ANS charges) 22 22 22 22 22

Total terminal ANS costs (M€2008) 1.492 1.530 1.535 1.554 4%

IFR airport movements (M) 13,0

Real unit costs (€2008 / IFR airport movement) 115 Figure 121: Terminal ANS unit costs at European system level (€2008)

8.6.10 Figure 121 indicates that at system level, terminal ANS costs are planned to increase by +4% in real terms between 2008 and 2011. An increase similar as for en-route ANS costs on the same period (see Figure 103).


TERMINAL ANS UNIT COSTS AT STATE LEVEL

8.6.11 Figure 122 shows the terminal ANS unit costs for each of the 22 States that provided actual 2008 data in November 2009. The year 2008 is the latest for which actual figures are available at the time of this analysis.

188

173

146140

135

9487

75

106112113

126

87 86

137

116

71

84

132

102

8282

0

40

80

120

160

200S

pain

Gre

ece

Bel

gium

Cze

ch R

epub

lic

Bul

garia

Fra

nce

Rom

ania

Ital

y

Hun

gary

Cyp

rus

Net

herla

nds

Por

tuga

l

Fin

land

Pol

and

Aus

tria

Ger

man

y

Slo

veni

a

Uni

ted

Kin

gdom

Den

mar

k

Irel

and

Lith

uani

a

Sw

eden

€ pe

r IF

R a

irpor

t mov

emen

t

European system average: €115

Figure 122: Terminal IFR ANS costs per IFR airport movement, 2008

8.6.12 Figure 122 indicates that there is a wide dispersion in unit costs for terminal ANS which vary from €188 for Spain to €71 for Sweden49. In Sweden, most terminal ANS assets (e.g. TWR buildings, ILS, etc.) and capital-related costs are allocated to the airport division of LFV and not to the ANS department. As a result, these costs are mainly recovered through landing fees rather than terminal ANS charges. Therefore, the rather low terminal unit costs for Sweden illustrate the difficulty of fair cost comparisons where ANS provision is integrated with airport management50.

8.6.13 Consequently, it is difficult to determine whether the differences shown in Figure 122 above are driven by economic and operational factors (for example, size of operations, economies of scale, or traffic complexity), differences in charging policy, or purely cost-allocation differences between en-route and terminal charges which are known to exist across States/ANSPs. To limit cost-allocation distortions, for benchmarking purposes the PRC considers that it is preferable to compare gate-to-gate ANSPs cost-effectiveness (i.e. en-route plus terminal ANS costs, see Section 8.7 below). It is expected that the application of EC Regulation 1794/2006 [Ref. 33] contributes to reducing these cost-allocation differences.

8.6.14 The PRC considers that, in the context of SES II performance scheme, it is important to start monitoring terminal ANS cost-effectiveness. This monitoring will ensure that there is no distortion in cost-allocation between en-route and terminal ANS during the first Reference Period. Furthermore, this analysis would constitute a solid ground for the setting of a EU-wide cost-efficiency target on terminal ANS for future Reference Periods (i.e. from 2015 onwards).

49 The 2008 unit terminal ANS costs reported for Greece in Figure 122 (i.e. €173) have been computed using the information submitted by Greece in June 2009 since no information relating to 2008 was provided in November 2009.

50 In fact the situation can be even different across airports operated by the same ANSP.


8.7 ANSP’s cost-effectiveness benchmarking 8.7.1 The ANSP cost-effectiveness focuses on ATM/CNS provision costs which are under the

direct control and responsibility of the ANSP. Detailed benchmarking analysis is available in the forthcoming ACE 2008 Benchmarking Report [Ref. 36].

8.7.2 Figure 123 shows a detailed breakdown of gate-to-gate51 ATM/CNS provision costs. Since there are differences in cost-allocation between en-route and terminal ANS among ANSPs, it is important to keep a “gate-to-gate” perspective when comparing ANSPs cost-effectiveness.

ATM/CNS provision costs (€ M) Total %Staff costs 4 804 63.4%Non-staff operating costs 1 297 17.1%Depreciation costs 828 10.9%Cost of capital 501 6.6%Exceptional Items 144 1.9%Total 7 574 100.0%

Exceptional Items1.9%Cost of capital

6.6%

Staff costs63.4%Non-staff

operating costs17.1%

Depreciation costs10.9%

Figure 123: Breakdown of gate-to-gate ATM/CNS provision costs (2008)

8.7.3 The cost-effectiveness analysis presented in this section is factual. It is important to note that local performance is impacted by several factors which are different across European States, and some of these are typically outside (exogenous) an ANSP’s direct control. A genuine measurement of cost inefficiencies would require full account to be taken of identified and measurable exogenous factors.

8.7.4 The quality of service provided by ANSPs has an impact on the efficiency of aircraft operations, which carry with them additional costs that need to be taken into consideration for a full economic assessment of ANSP performance. The quality of service associated with ATM/CNS provision by ANSPs is, for the time being, assessed only in terms of ATFM ground delays, which can be measured consistently, can be attributed to ANSPs, and can be expressed in monetary terms. The indicator of “economic” cost-effectiveness is therefore the ATM/CNS provision costs plus the costs of ATFM ground delay, all expressed per composite flight-hour.

GATE-TO-GATE COST-EFFECTIVENESS

2004-2008 TRENDS

8.7.5 The top of Figure 125 displays the trend at European level of the gate-to-gate “economic” cost-effectiveness indicator between 2004 and 2008 for a consistent sample of 33 ANSPs for which data for a time-series analysis was available. At system level, unit economic costs slightly reduced by -2.7% between 2004 and 2008 (-0.7% a year).

8.7.6 Figure 125 shows that unit economic costs fell steadily until 2006, stabilised in 2007 and increased in 2008. The drivers for this increase are shown in Figure 124 which indicates that in 2008, traffic growth slowed down from +4-6% a year to +1.6%. In the meantime, ATM/CNS provision costs increased by +0.9% in real terms.

51 That is the aggregation of en-route and terminal ANS.


+0.9% +1.6%

+4.4% +4.5%+5.5%

+17.8%

-2.2%

+7.1%+8.1%

+4.9%

+0.9% +1.6%

-4%

0%

4%

8%

12%

16%

20%

2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08

ATM/CNS provision costs Composite flight-hours Unit costs of ATFM delays

Figure 124: Changes in ATM/CNS provision costs, traffic and ATFM delays (2004-2008)

8.7.7 At the same time, the unit costs of ATFM delays increased substantially (+8.1%), which is disappointing given the relatively low traffic growth in 2008. The result was an overall rise in 2008 of +0.6% in the economic cost per composite flight-hour.

8.7.8 Figure 125 shows that economic costs per composite flight-hour have increased since 2004 in 11 ANSPs. The largest increases have been in NAVIAIR (+84%), DCAC Cyprus (+75%) and Croatia Control (+55%). For these three ANSPs, the rise in unit economic costs is mainly due to a significant increase of ATFM delays52. In particular, following the implementation of the DATMAS system, NAVIAIR experienced significant delays during four months in 2008. In several ANSPs, unit economic costs significantly decreased as a result of improved quality of service and/or greater financial cost-effectiveness. The largest decreases have been observed for ATSA Bulgaria (-39%) and Oro Navigacija (-31%).

8.7.9 The decrease in unit economic costs in three of the five largest ANSPs (DFS (-4%), DSNA (-3%) and ENAV (-16%) significantly contributed to the fall observed at European system level. On the other hand, unit economic costs increased for NATS +4% since the reduction in ATM/CNS provision costs was not sufficient to compensate for the rise in ATFM delays. For Aena, the combination of increases in ATM/CNS provision costs and in ATFM delays led to an increase in unit economic costs (+7%) between 2004 and 2008. A main driver for this increase relates to Aena ATCO employment costs per hour which were the highest in 2004 and which increased by an additional +8% over the period.

52 The ATFM delays data reported in Figure 124 and Figure 125 relate to the minutes of ATFM delays greater than 15 minutes. These include en-route ATFM delays but also delays arising from the terminal environment (i.e. from aerodrome capacity and weather issues).


Economic gate-to-gate cost-effectiveness

€ 500 € 495 € 482 € 484 € 487

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

€ p

er c

omp

osite

flig

ht-

hou

r (2

008

pric

es)

ATFM Delay costs per composite flight-hour

ATM/CNS provision costs per composite flight-hour

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

Bel

goc

ontr

ol

LVN

L

Ae

na

Au

stro

Con

trol

Cro

atia

Con

trol

DC

AC

Cyp

rus

Sky

guid

e

NA

VIA

IR

PA

NS

A

DF

S

RO

MA

TS

A

LPS

AN

S C

R

EN

AV

MK

CA

A

NA

V P

ort

uga

l (F

IR L

isbo

a)

NA

TS

Slo

ven

ia C

ontr

ol

HC

AA

DS

NA

NA

TA

Alb

ania

AT

SA

Bu

lga

ria

Mol

dA

TS

A

UkS

AT

SE

IAA

Avi

nor

DH

MI

Hu

ngar

oC

ontr

ol

SM

AT

SA

Oro

Na

viga

cija

Fin

avi

a

MU

AC

LF

V/A

NS

Sw

ede

n

MA

TS

LGS

EA

NS

€ p

er c

ompo

site

flig

ht-

hou

r (2

008

pric

es)

Unit economic costs 2004

Gate-to-gate ATCO-hour productivity 0.780.750.71

0.690.69

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Com

posi

te f

light

-hou

r pe

r A

TC

O-h

our

on d

uty

0.0

0.4

0.8

1.2

1.6

2.0

MU

AC

EA

NS

Sky

gui

de

NA

TS

Aus

tro

Con

trol

DF

S

IAA

NA

V P

ortu

gal (

FIR

Lis

boa)

AN

S C

R

NA

VIA

IR

PA

NS

A

DC

AC

Cyp

rus

LVN

L

Hun

gar

oC

ont

rol

EN

AV

DS

NA

Avi

nor

HC

AA

SM

AT

SA

LGS

LFV

/AN

S S

wed

en

Bel

goco

ntro

l

Cro

atia

Con

trol

DH

MI

AT

SA

Bu

lgar

ia

Fin

avia

LP

S

Oro

Nav

iga

cija

NA

TA

Alb

ania

Aen

a

MA

TS

Slo

veni

a C

ontr

ol

RO

MA

TS

A

UkS

AT

SE

MK

CA

A

Mol

dAT

SA

Com

posi

te fl

ight

-hou

r p

er A

TC

O-h

our

on d

uty

ATCO-hour productivity 2008 ATCO-hour productivity 2004

Gate-to-gate employment costs per ATCO-hour

€100€97€90

€84€83

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

€ pe

r A

TC

O-h

our

on d

uty

(200

8 pr

ices

)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

Aen

a

Au

stro

Con

trol

DF

S

MU

AC

NA

V P

ortu

gal (

FIR

Lis

boa

)

Bel

goco

ntro

l

LV

NL

Sky

guid

e

EN

AV

NA

TS

IAA

PA

NS

A

DS

NA

AN

S C

R

NA

VIA

IR

Avi

nor

HC

AA

LF

V/A

NS

Sw

ede

n

Slo

ven

ia C

ont

rol

Fin

avia

Cro

atia

Con

trol

Hun

garo

Con

trol

RO

MA

TS

A

DC

AC

Cyp

rus

LPS

AT

SA

Bul

gar

ia

EA

NS

SM

AT

SA

Oro

Nav

igac

ija

LG

S

MK

CA

A

DH

MI

MA

TS

UkS

AT

SE

NA

TA

Alb

ani

a

Mol

dAT

SA

€ pe

r A

TC

O-h

our

on

duty

(20

08 p

rices

)

Employment costs per ATCO-hour 2008 Employment costs per ATCO-hour 2004

Gate-to-gate support costs per composite flight-hour

€283€284€291€307

€324

0

100

200

300

400

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

€ pe

r co

mpo

site

flig

ht-h

our

(200

8 pr

ices

)

0

200

400

600

Bel

goco

ntr

ol

LV

NL

MK

CA

A

LPS

RO

MA

TS

A

NA

TA

Alb

ani

a

UkS

AT

SE

Mol

dAT

SA

Sky

guid

e

AN

S C

R

EN

AV

AT

SA

Bul

gar

ia

DS

NA

NA

V P

ortu

gal (

FIR

Lis

boa

)

Slo

ven

ia C

ont

rol

NA

TS

DF

S

Aen

a

Au

stro

Con

trol

NA

VIA

IR

PA

NS

A

SM

AT

SA

Oro

Nav

igac

ija

Avi

nor

DH

MI

Hun

garo

Con

trol

Cro

atia

Con

trol

IAA

MA

TS

LGS

Fin

avi

a

DC

AC

Cyp

rus

HC

AA

LF

V/A

NS

Sw

ede

n

MU

AC

EA

NS

€ p

er

com

posi

te f

light

-hou

rs (

2008

pric

es)

Support costs per composite flight-hour 2008

Support costs per composite flight-hour 2004

Figure 125: ATM/CNS cost-effectiveness comparisons, 2004-2008 (real terms)


8.7.10 The cost-effectiveness indicator can be broken down into three main key economic drivers: (1) ATCO-hour productivity, (2) employment costs per ATCO-hour and (3) support costs per composite flight-hour. Figure 126 shows how the various components contributed to the overall improvement in cost-effectiveness (-7.3% decrease in unit costs) between 2004 and 2008.

8.7.11 The increase in ATCO employment costs (+21.1%) was not compensated by the increase in ATCO-hour productivity (+12.6%), thereby resulting in increased ATCO employment costs per composite flight-hour (+7.5%). Figure 126 also indicates that traffic volumes increased much faster (+16.9%) than support costs (+2.0%), resulting in an appreciable decrease of the support costs per composite flight-hour (-12.8%). The central part of Figure 126 shows that between 2004 and 2008, given the respective weights of ATCO costs (31%) and support costs (69%), the overall unit costs decreased by-7.3%.

+12.6%

+21.1%

+7.5%

-7.3%

-12.8%

+2.0%

+16.9%

"Traffic effect"

increased ATCO-hour productivity

Decrease inunit ATM/CNS

provision costs2004-2008

"Support costs effect"

increased employment

costs per ATCO-hour

increased ATCO

employment costs per

composite flight-hour

decreased support costs per composite

flight-hour

Weight31%

Weight69%

Figure 126: Breakdown of changes in cost-effectiveness, 2004-2008 (real terms)

8.7.12 The decrease in support costs per composite flight-hour is consistent with expectations of scale effects in the provision of ATM/CNS services: as the main part of support costs are generally fixed costs in the short and medium terms, these are not expected to change proportionally with traffic volumes.

8.7.13 Further details about the changes in ATCO-hour productivity, employment costs per ATCO-hour and unit support costs at ANSP level can be found in forthcoming ACE 2008 Benchmarking Report [Ref. 36].

8.8 Conclusions 8.8.1 The PRC cost-effectiveness target proposed in 2003 (i.e. -14% decrease in unit costs for

the period 2003-2008) has been achieved.

8.8.2 This achievement directly translates into “savings” of some €3 billion with respect to constant 2003 unit costs. The positive traffic growth during the 2003-2008 period has greatly contributed to this achievement, along with greater cost-effectiveness awareness among a majority of ANSPs.

8.8.3 According to benchmarking findings, the decrease in unit costs between 2004 and 2008 is mainly due to the fact that support costs remained fairly constant while traffic increased by +17%. This is consistent with expectations of scale effects in the provision of ATC services. A main part of support costs, which represent 70% of ATM/CNS provision costs, are generally fixed costs in the short and medium terms and are not expected to change proportionally with traffic volumes.


8.8.4 However, 2008 marks the end of a positive business cycle for the European ANS system and en-route unit costs are planned to sharply increase in 2009 and 2010. As a result, the Pan-European target adopted by the Provisional Council in Nov. 2007 (-6% reduction of unit costs between 2008 and 2010) will not be met.

8.8.5 The economic downturn, which became apparent in summer 2008, has affected the aviation community throughout 2009 with unprecedented severity, requiring greater flexibility on ANSPs and EUROCONTROL to adjust to new unfavourable economic conditions. In this context, no doubt that the pressure to genuinely improve cost-effectiveness is high on the agenda of airspace users’ expectations.

8.8.6 Several European ANSPs have revised their plans accordingly and implemented cost-containment measures for 2009 and 2010. All the five largest States plan to decrease their en-route cost-base in 2009 or in 2010. EUROCONTROL has decided to freeze its 2010 cost-base at 2008 levels. It is important that these planned cost reductions materialise in order to minimise under-recoveries that will negatively impact airspace users through higher charges in future years.

8.8.7 It is however important that the implementation of cost-containment measures does not contribute to jeopardize the provision of future ATC capacity. The decrease in traffic offers some breathing space for ANSPs to prioritise the projects with the most promising capacity outcomes, taking into account trade-offs, so that there is a better match between capacity and demand when traffic growth resumes.

8.8.8 The current economic crisis clearly shows the limits of the full cost-recovery regime where the under-recoveries generated in 2008 and 2009 will have to be borne by airspace users in future years. In the context of SES II, the EC is developing Implementing Rules on the performance scheme and also amending the Implementing Rules on the Charging Scheme. These Implementing Rules foresee the introduction of an incentive scheme based on risk sharing and on the principle of determined costs. This should contribute to better incentivise performance improvements and balance risks between States/ANSPs and airspace users.

8.8.9 The transparency of terminal ANS costs charged to airspace users is gradually improving with the setting of the 2010 terminal navigation charges according to the EC Charging Scheme Regulation. However, the quality and completeness of data provided vary significantly across States. This information is now analysed for the first time in a PRR to provide an overview and an initial assessment of terminal ANS cost-effectiveness.

8.8.10 The PRC considers that, in the context of SES II performance scheme, it is important to start effective monitoring of terminal ANS cost-effectiveness in order to pave the way for the setting of future EU-wide cost-efficiency targets.

Chapter 9: Economic Assessment

PRR 2009 110 Chapter 9: Economic Assessment

PART III - OVERALL ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT 9 ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT


With the exception of safety where minimum agreed levels must be guaranteed, it is important to develop a consolidated view in order to monitor overall economic performance for those KPAs for which economic trade-offs are possible (capacity vs. delays, capacity vs. flight efficiency).

The indicators related to ANS performance at airports are not yet available with a sufficient level of precision and therefore the economic assessment is limited to en-route ANS. Work is needed to include ANS performance at airports in the economic assessment as soon as possible.

The first reference period of the SES II performance scheme starting in 2012 will mark a significant change for European ANS performance and it is important to ensure the development of sound and relevant key indicators which serve as a foundation for target setting.

Notwithstanding an increase of the unit costs for en-route ANS capacity provision in 2009, total economic en-route unit costs show a significant decline (-6%) due the reduction of en-route ATFM delays as a result of the significant reduction of traffic in 2009 and flight efficiency improvements.

9.1 Introduction 9.1.1 This chapter combines key indicators from the previous chapters (safety, service quality,

environment, cost effectiveness) for a consolidated economic assessment of ANS performance.

9.1.2 The chapter ends with a reflection of the main challenges and developments relevant for ANS performance in the future.

9.2 Consolidated assessment of ANS performance 9.2.1 Without a doubt, there are interdependencies between the individual key performance

areas evaluated in the individual chapters of this report.

9.2.2 Keeping apart from Safety53 which is difficult to assess in monetary terms and for which minimum agreed levels must be guaranteed, there are clear trade-offs between the quality of service domain, cost-efficiency, and the provision of capacity, as illustrated in Figure 127. Insufficient capacity results in lower service quality (non-optimum flight profiles) while excess capacity entails higher than necessary costs (impact on cost-effectiveness).

9.2.3 In order to develop a consolidated view for those KPAs for which economic trade-offs need to be considered, ANS performance is expressed in monetary terms.

9.2.4 Thus, the total economic ANS costs consist of direct costs (route and terminal charges) and indirect costs (delays, non-optimum flight profiles) and enable the monitoring of total economic costs borne by airspace users while considering relevant economic trade-offs.

9.2.5 The consolidated indicator corresponds to the Strategic economic objective agreed by Transport Ministers in 2000 “to decrease the direct and indirect ATM-related costs per unit of aircraft operations”, which is still relevant under SES.

9.2.6 The ultimate goal must be to provide the necessary airport and en-route capacity within required safety levels whilst minimising total ANS economic gate-to-gate costs to airspace users.

53 In addition to the minimum agreed safety levels which are not subject to any trade-offs, it is acknowledged that there may be interdependencies between safety and other performance areas.


Figure 127: Perspectives on ANS performance

9.2.7 Safety is not a performance area related only to ANS service provision, but a common performance area for both airspace users and air navigation service providers. Improper safety management at operational level or inadequate safety assurance at regulatory level may equally affect the performance of both types of organisations.

9.3 Estimated economic ANS costs at airports 9.3.1 While ANS performance in the en-route environment is relatively well understood,

measured and managed, the airport environment is generally more complex.

ESTIMATED INDIRECT SERVICE QUALITY COSTS

9.3.2 In order to develop a sound and commonly agreed framework for the measurement of ANS-related operational performance at and around airports, the PRC launched the ATM at Airports Performance (ATMAP) project in 2008 (see also Chapter 6).

9.3.3 The ATMAP project aims at developing relevant operational indicators (i.e. inefficiencies in the taxi-phase, delays due to airborne terminal holdings, etc.) in cooperation with interested stakeholders and is expected to establish solid and commonly agreed indicators for the review of ANS-related performance at airports which will also be important in the context of the SES II performance scheme.

9.3.4 Although some considerable progress has been made, the quantification of ANS-related inefficiencies at airports is less mature and indicators for the consistent assessment of the resulting economic impact are still being refined within the ATMAP project.

TERMINAL ANS COSTS

9.3.5 As outlined in Chapter 8.6, despite gradual transparency improvements due to the EC Charging Scheme Regulation, there is still heterogeneity of situations resulting in different levels of visibility and transparency on terminal ANS costs at European level.

9.3.6 An additional level of complexity is the possibility to recover terminal ANS costs through other sources (e.g. cross subsidies such as revenues from other sources).

9.3.7 In view of the varying quality and completeness of data presently available on terminal ANS costs, it is important to continue monitoring and to develop a deeper understanding of the reported costs before terminal ANS costs can be considered in an economic assessment. This is also particularly relevant in the context of the SES II performance

Political Perspective

Airspace User

Perspective

ANSP Perspective

User charges

Service Quality (time, fuel)

Cost- effectiveness

ECONOMY ENVIRONMENT

Operational performance

Capacity

SAFETY

Safety


scheme to ensure the development of sound and relevant indicators for the setting of performance targets.

TOTAL ECONOMIC ANS COSTS AT AIRPORTS

9.3.8 As the costs related to ANS-related performance at airports are not yet available with a sufficient level of precision no attempt has been made to estimate total economic ANS costs at airports.

9.4 Estimated economic en-route ANS costs 9.4.1 This section provides a consolidated view of ANS en-route performance for those KPAs

for which economic trade-offs are possible. The resulting economic en-route unit cost therefore corresponds to the direct and indirect costs borne by airspace users for en-route ANS in Europe.

ESTIMATED INDIRECT SERVICE QUALITY COSTS

9.4.2 Costs incurred by airspace users due to en-route ATFM delays (applied at the departure airport) or non-optimum en-route flight profiles arise from extra time and additional fuel burn (see also Chapter 5).

9.4.3 Figure 128 shows the estimated costs of en-route ATFM delay in Europe between 2001 and 2009.

9.4.4 Total cost of en-route ATFM delay to European airspace users is estimated to be € 550M in 2009.

9.4.5 Compared to 2008, this represents a notable reduction of € 350M. As outlined in Chapter 5, the reduction was mainly due to the unprecedented drop in traffic.

ATFM delay costs: The most comprehensive report on the cost of ATFM delays is the University of Westminster Report [Ref 37]. The report is presently being updated.

Average costs of “tactical” delay on the ground (engine off) are approximated to be close to zero for the first 15 minutes and €82 per minute, on average, for ATFM delays longer than 15 minutes (€ 2008 prices).

The estimate includes direct costs (crew, passenger compensation, etc.), the network effect (i.e. the costs of reactionary delays that are generated by primary delays) and the estimated costs to an airline to retain passenger loyalty. The cost of time lost by passenger is partly reflected.

It should be noted that there are inevitably margins of uncertainty in the approximation of delay costs.

En-route Airport Total En-route Airport Total

2001 27.6 M 16.2 M 5.7 M 21.9 M € 1,350 M € 450 M € 1,800 M2002 18.0 M 9.0 M 4.9 M 13.9 M € 750 M € 400 M € 1,150 M2003 14.8 M 5.6 M 5.5 M 11.2 M € 450 M € 450 M € 900 M2004 14.9 M 5.2 M 6.1 M 11.3 M € 450 M € 500 M € 950 M2005 17.6 M 6.3 M 7.4 M 13.6 M € 500 M € 600 M € 1,100 M2006 18.4 M 7.7 M 6.7 M 14.4 M € 650 M € 550 M € 1,200 M2007 21.5 M 9.2 M 7.7 M 16.9 M € 750 M € 650 M € 1,400 M2008 23.8 M 11.2 M 7.6 M 18.9 M € 900 M € 650 M € 1,550 M2009 15.2 M 6.9 M 5.3 M 12.2 M € 550 M € 450 M € 1,000 M

source: EUROCONTROL

YearTotal ATFM

delays (min.)

ATFM Delays > 15 minutesEstimated cost of ATFM delays

(Euro - 2008 Prices)

Figure 128: Estimated costs of ATFM delay

9.4.6 Figure 129 shows the estimated cost related to horizontal en-route extension (see Chapter 5). The methodology for measuring flight efficiency has been developed in 2004 and hence data are not available before 2004.


9.4.7 For the approximation of costs due to en-route extension, it is important to recall that the indicator measures the difference between the actual flown flight profile and the great circle distance, which is (due to capacity and safety constraints) an unachievable optimum.

Costs of en-route extension:

The costs related to horizontal en-route extension include both the costs of extra fuel burnt and additional flight time.

In the case of route extension, the additional time is predictable in most cases and normally reflected in scheduled flight times. The “strategic” cost buffer included in airline schedules is estimated at €41 per minute (€ 2008 prices) on average for a flight in Europe to which the cost of extra fuel is added [Ref. 37].

9.4.8 Total cost related to en-route extension is estimated to be around € 2000M in 2009. There was a notable reduction compared to 2008 which was partly related to improved en-route flight efficiency (see Chapter 5) but also partly due to the lower jet fuel prices in 2009 (see also Chapter 2).

Cost of TIME Cost of FUEL

Yea

r

Tot

al e

xtra

di

stan

ce

(M k

m)

Tot

al e

xtra

tim

e ('0

00 h

rs.)

Cos

t of

tim

e

(€20

08 p

rice

s)

Tot

al e

xtra

fue

l (M

t)

Cos

t per

tonn

e (€

2008

pri

ces)

Cos

t of

tota

l ext

ra

fuel

(€2

008

pric

es)

Total costs (€2008 prices)

2004 435 555 € 1 350 M 1.45 Mt € 399 € 600 M € 1 950 M

2005 427 544 € 1 350 M 1.42 Mt € 549 € 800 M € 2 150 M

2006 440 560 € 1 400 M 1.46 Mt € 611 € 900 M € 2 300 M

2007 470 599 € 1 500 M 1.56 Mt € 605 € 950 M € 2 450 M

2008 473 603 € 1 500 M 1.57 Mt € 770 € 1 200 M € 2 700 M

2009 429 545 € 1 350 M 1.47 Mt € 453 € 650 M € 2 000 M

Figure 129: Estimated costs of sub-optimal horizontal flight efficiency

EN-ROUTE ANS COSTS

9.4.9 Total en-route ANS costs are projected to be € 6800M in 2009 which is an increase compared to 2008. A more detailed evaluation of en-route ANS costs is provided in Chapter 8 of this report.

9.4.10 Future assessments of economic en-route ANS costs will also need to consider costs related to new equipment arising from the ATM Master plan.

9.5 Evolution of Total economic en-route ANS Costs 9.5.1 The following section provides an estimate of total economic ANS en-route costs

between 2004 and 2009.

9.5.2 The Key Performance Indicator (KPI) for total economic en-route ANS costs is the real unit economic cost, i.e. the deflated ANS cost per km. Figure 130 shows the derivation of this indicator, and its evolution between 2004 and 2009.


€ 2008 PRICES 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 P

Cost of capacity (€M) 6 100 6 200 6 200 6 400 6 700 6 800 (P)

Cost of ATFM en-route delays (€M) 450 500 650 750 900 550

Cost of route extension (€M) 1 950 2 150 2 300 2 450 2 700 2 000

Total economic cost (€M) 8 450 8 800 9 200 9 600 10 250 9 350 (P)

Total distance charged (M km) 7 050 7 450 7 800 8 300 8 850 8 550 (P)

Real unit economic cost (€/km) €1.20 €1.18 €1.17 €1.15 €1.16 €1.10 (P)

Figure 130: Total economic en-route costs

9.5.3 The evolution of the economic en-route unit costs at European system level in Figure 131 illustrates the importance of a consolidated view. The notable improvements observed for direct en-route ANS costs (dark blue) between 2004 and 2008 were almost cancelled-out by increases in en-route ATFM delays and en-route extension. This indicates the importance of managing the entire system performance.

0.9 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8

0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3

0.06 0.07 0.08 0.10

0.8

0.2

0.09 0.07

-2% -1% -1% 1% -6%

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009P

€2

00

8/k

m

Cost of ATFMdelay

Cost of routeextension

Cost of capacity


Figure 131: Real unit economic en-route cost

9.5.4 Despite an increase of the unit costs for en-route ANS capacity provision in 2009, total economic en-route unit costs show a significant decline (-6%) due to the reduction of costs related to en-route ATFM delays and flight efficiency improvements which were to a large extent driven by the significant reduction of traffic and the lower fuel price in 2009 (see Figure 18 in Chapter 2).

9.5.5 The long term analysis in Figure 132 reveals cyclic behaviour which suggests a reactive management of capacity (i.e. capacity issues are only solved when they appear or pressing on costs in periods of low delays).

9.5.6 Periods of high delays and low cost, or vice-versa, can be observed until 1999, as shown in Figure 132. The unit economic cost remains approximately constant, and there is no improvement in ANS economic costs borne by users.

9.5.7 Such cycles can be avoided and overall performance improved with proactive capacity management54, based on proper performance indicators and performance management - in this case capacity management as applied since 2001.

54 Proactive capacity management compensates the lag in raising capacity (typically 3-5 years) by proper planning.


0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

1.1

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

P

2010

P

2011

P

2012

P

2013

P

2014

P

€200

8 pe

r ki

lom

etre

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Min

utes

of

en-r

oute

AT

FM

del

ay p

er f

light

and

tra

ffic

inde

x

En-route unit costs Traffic (index: 1990=100) En-route delay (Summer)

All States in Route Charges system data source : EUROCONTROL/CRCO, CFMU (delay)

Figure 132: Evolution of en-route ATFM delays, unit costs and traffic

9.6 Challenges and developments ahead 9.6.1 The following section outlines some of the main challenges and developments relevant

for ANS performance.

TRAFFIC DECREASE AND ANS PERFORMANCE

9.6.2 After a continuous traffic growth for a number of years, in some parts of Europe at very high rates, the unprecedented downturn due to the economic crisis in 2008/09 cancelled-out three to four full years of traffic growth. Air traffic dropped by 6.6% in 2009 which effectively cut traffic back to 2005/6 levels (see Chapter 2).

9.6.3 Airlines already in a highly competitive market were forced to quickly adapt to the drastic changes in market conditions by quickly cutting costs and capacity. The temporary suspension of the “use it or lose it” rule by the European Commission for the Summer season 2009 enabled airlines to significantly scale-back capacity without running the risk of loosing valuable airport slots for the next season.

9.6.4 Despite all cost-cutting measures and capacity reductions in response to the drop in demand, airlines expect the highest annual loss ever reported for the industry in 2009. The Association of European Airlines (AEA) forecasts an aggregate loss for its members of € 3 billion which is more than 50% higher than the losses following the events of 11 September 2001.

9.6.5 Despite specific cost containment measures, ANSPs showed a limited ability to adjust costs in line with the exceptional fall in air traffic in 2009. The limited degree of flexibility to quickly adjust to changing conditions is partly due to the characteristics of the cost structure which is largely fixed in the short term but also due to the lack of incentives provided by the current ANS funding system which is based on the “full cost recovery principle”.

Full cost recovery regime:

The current ANS funding model is based on the “full cost recovery principle” which is an automatic adjustment of the unit rate charges to airspace users to recover ANS provision costs and to account for over or under recoveries from previous years.

While it ensures financial stability of the ANS service providers, it lacks incentives to control costs as any under-recoveries due to higher than expected costs or lower than expected traffic are borne by airspace users.


9.6.6 In the very short run, virtually all ATM/CNS provision costs are fixed. However, on practical timescale, there are degrees of variability of costs to demand. The ATM industry has demonstrated that support costs (70% of total ATM/CNS provision costs) have a certain degree of downwards flexibility, for example by reconsidering staffing needs for support functions.

9.6.7 ATCOs in OPS employment costs (30% of total ATM/CNS provision costs) could be considered as more “variable” because they are directly linked to traffic demand, but in practice they show a very limited degree of downwards flexibility. In fact, in case of temporary decrease in demand it is neither sensible nor economical to reduce the number of ATCOs in OPS given the costs and the lead time for recruitment and training. The cutback of overtime hours and the relinquishment of financial bonuses and rewards are in practice the main short term measures to reduce these costs.

9.6.8 The unprecedented drop in traffic clearly shows the limitations of the current full cost recovery regime. ANSPs have no strong incentives to reduce costs and to be reactive to reductions in traffic levels as rates are adjusted upwards to compensate for lower traffic volumes.

9.6.9 Significant under-recoveries generated in 2008 and 2009 will have to be borne by airspace users in future years resulting in an increase of the unit rates in a time when the industry starts to recover.

9.6.10 Following a plea by the European Commission to freeze or reduce unit rates in 2010, a number of States have launched various cost containment programmes, as described in paragraph 8.2.11 in Chapter 8.2. Eight States proposed to freeze unit rates at 2009 levels, seven States proposed reductions below 2009 levels and 19 States proposed increases over 2009 levels.

9.6.11 In the context of the SES II performance scheme, the EC is developing implementing rules which require the setting of binding national/FAB performance targets in four performance areas (Safety, Cost-effectiveness, Capacity, and Environment) and the introduction of a corresponding incentive scheme.

9.6.12 The incentivisation of ANS performance would need to be linked to a mechanism which balances the risks between States/ANSPs and airspace users. ANSPs should be allowed to build up financial reserves when they perform well (service quality, cost efficiency) but should have to bear a risk when traffic falls below planned levels or when their costs are above pre-determined levels.

9.6.13 Overall, the significant drop in air traffic demand resulted in an improvement of ANS service quality. Nevertheless, it should be noted that in a small number of ANSPs the significant traffic decrease did not result in a similar delay decrease (see Chapter 5) and as a result the summer en-route ATFM delay target was not met in 2009.

9.6.14 Compared to 2006 when the level of traffic was similar, ATFM en-route delays decreased by 8.5% and en-route flight efficiency improved by 1.1% which is due to the continuous addition of capacity improvements over the past three years.

9.6.15 Despite the cost containment measures at some ACCs (see also paragraph 8.2.11 in Chapter 8) and the adaptation of available capacity to reduced demand, effective capacity increased by 0.4% in 2009 compared to 2008.


ATM SYSTEM UPGRADES AND REPLACEMENTS

9.6.16 As outlined in Chapter 5, a large number of ANSPs plan major upgrades or a replacement of their ATM system over the next 5 years.

9.6.17 Figure 133: shows that 14 ACCs already upgraded their Flight Data Processing (FDP) system in 2008. This is significantly more than in any of the 5 preceding years.

9.6.18 Between 2009 and 2015, 31 more upgrades or replacements of FDP system55 are planned which requires substantial capital expenditure. It will be a challenge for ANSPs to deploy these new systems without negatively impacting the level of service quality provided [Ref 36].

ATHINAI BRATISLAVA BRUSSELS BARCELONA ANKARA BRUSSELS BUCHAREST ANKARA BARCELONA BREMEN

BRINDISI BUDAPEST BUCHAREST CANARIAS BEOGRAD NICOSIA BEOGRAD BRATISLAVA MUNCHEN

CHISINAU RHEIN LISBOA BREMEN RHEIN CHISINAU BRINDISI ZURICH

MACEDONIA MADRID ISTANBUL SOFIA ISTANBUL CANARIAS

MILANO PALMA KYIV KYIV LANGEN

NICOSIA PRAHA LANGEN L'VIV LJUBLJANA

PADOVA SEVILLA MUAC MALMO MADRID

ROMA SKOPJE MUNCHEN TALLINN MILANO

WARSZAWA RIGA WARSZAWA PADOVA

SOFIA PALMA

TALLINN PRAHA

TIRANA ROMA

VILNIUS SEVILLA

WIEN SKOPJE

TAMPERE

TIRANA

VILNIUS

WIEN

<2005 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012-2015 >2015

FDPS upgrades & replacements

Figure 133: FDPS system upgrades and planned replacements

9.6.19 Notwithstanding the uncertainties attached to the current air traffic forecasts, it is important to continue to close existing capacity gaps and to carefully plan future capacity increases and system upgrades in order to be able to accommodate future traffic demand without costly service quality penalties.

9.6.20 A proactive capacity planning and management is especially important considering the fact that structural decisions concerning capacity (recruitment, investment, major airspace redesign, and operational agreements within FABs) typically have an operational effect after 3-5 years.

SINGLE EUROPEAN SKY PERFORMANCE SCHEME

9.6.21 The SES Performance Scheme is designed to be a powerful driver of European ANS performance. The Scheme will include European Union wide targets in four key performance areas (Safety, Cost-efficiency, Capacity, and Environment) which are transposed into binding national/FAB targets for which clear accountabilities must be assigned.

9.6.22 The first reference period of the SES II performance scheme starting in 2012 will mark a significant change for European ANS performance and it is important to ensure the development of sound and relevant key indicators which serve as a foundation for target setting (see also Chapter 8).

55 The upgrades are partly necessary due to changes in the ICAO flight plan format.


SINGLE EUROPEAN SKY ATM RESEARCH (SESAR)

9.6.23 The SES II package also includes a technological pillar (see also Chapter 1.3.). The SESAR programme constitutes the R&D branch of the European SES initiative. As such it should deliver technological solutions and operational concepts and outline expected costs and benefits before decisions on the implementation are taken.

9.6.24 For the benefit of the entire European aviation community, it will be important to ensure consistency and close coordination between ANS performance review in Europe and developments within SESAR.

9.7 Conclusions 9.7.1 The indicators related to ANS performance at airports are not yet available with a

sufficient level of precision and therefore the economic assessment is limited to en-route ANS. Work is needed to include ANS performance at airports in the economic assessment as soon as possible. This is particularly important in the context of the SES II performance scheme.

9.7.2 With the exception of safety where minimum agreed levels must be guaranteed, it is important to develop a consolidated view in order to monitor overall economic performance for those KPAs for which economic trade-offs are possible (costs related to capacity provision vs. costs associated with service quality).

9.7.3 The significant improvements observed for direct en-route ANS costs between 2004 and 2008 were almost cancelled-out by increases in en-route ATFM delays and en-route extension. This indicates the importance of managing the entire system performance.

9.7.4 Notwithstanding an increase of the unit costs for en-route ANS capacity provision in 2009, total economic en-route unit costs show a significant decline (-6%) due the reduction of en-route ATFM delays and flight efficiency improvements which were to a large extent driven by the significant reduction of traffic in 2009.

9.7.5 The first reference period of the SES II performance scheme starting in 2012 will mark a significant change for European ANS performance and it is important to ensure the development of sound and relevant key indicators which serve as a foundation for target setting.

119

ANNEX I - SES II PERFORMANCE SCHEME

Article 11 of the Framework Regulation (EC) No 549/2004, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1070/2009 of 21 October 2009

Article11

Performance scheme

1. To improve the performance of air navigation services and network functions in the single European sky, a performance scheme for air navigation services and network functions shall be set up. It shall include:

(a) Community-wide performance targets on the key performance areas of safety, the environment, capacity and cost-efficiency;

(b) national plans or plans for functional airspace blocks, including performance targets, ensuring consistency with the Community-wide performance targets; and

(c) periodic review, monitoring and benchmarking of the performance of air navigation services and network functions.

2. In accordance with the regulatory procedure referred to in Article 5(3), the Commission may designate Eurocontrol or another impartial and competent body to act as a "performance review body". The role of the performance review body shall be to assist the Commission, in coordination with the national supervisory authorities, and to assist the national supervisory authorities on request in the implementation of the performance scheme referred to in paragraph 1. The Commission shall ensure that the performance review body acts independently when carrying out the tasks entrusted to it by the Commission.

3. (a) The Community-wide performance targets for the air traffic management network shall be adopted by the Commission in accordance with the regulatory procedure referred to in Article 5(3), after taking into account the relevant inputs from national supervisory authorities at national level or at the level of functional airspace blocks.

(b) The national or functional airspace block plans referred to in point (b) of paragraph 1 shall be drawn up by national supervisory authorities and adopted by the Member State(s). These plans shall include binding national targets or targets at the level of functional airspace blocks and an appropriate incentive scheme as adopted by the Member State(s). Drafting of the plans shall be subject to consultation with air navigation service providers, airspace users' representatives, and, where relevant, airport operators and airport coordinators.

(c) The consistency of the national or functional airspace block targets with the Community-wide performance targets shall be assessed by the Commission using the assessment criteria referred to in point (d) of paragraph 6.

In the event that the Commission identifies that one or more national or functional airspace block targets do not meet the assessment criteria, it may decide, in accordance with the advisory procedure referred to in Article 5(2)¸ to issue a recommendation that the national supervisory authorities concerned propose revised performance target(s). The Member State(s) concerned shall adopt revised performance targets and appropriate measures which shall be notified to the Commission in due time.

120

Where the Commission finds that the revised performance targets and appropriate measures are not adequate, it may decide, in accordance with the regulatory procedure referred to in Article 5(3), that the Member States concerned shall take corrective measures.

Alternatively, the Commission may decide, with adequate supporting evidence, to revise the Community-wide performance targets in accordance with the regulatory procedure referred to in Article 5(3).

(d) The reference period for the performance scheme shall cover a minimum of three years and a maximum of five years. During this period, in the event that the national or functional airspace block targets are not met, the Member States and/or the national supervisory authorities shall apply the appropriate measures they have defined. The first reference period shall cover the first three years following the adoption of the implementing rules referred to in paragraph 6.

(e) The Commission shall carry out regular assessments of the achievement of the performance targets and present the results to the Single Sky Committee.

4. The following procedures shall apply to the performance scheme referred to in paragraph 1:

(a) collection, validation, examination, evaluation and dissemination of relevant data related to the performance of air navigation services and network functions from all relevant parties, including air navigation service providers, airspace users, airport operators, national supervisory authorities, Member States and Eurocontrol;

(b) selection of appropriate key performance areas on the basis of ICAO Document No 9854 "Global Air Traffic Management Operational Concept", and consistent with those identified in the Performance Framework of the ATM Master Plan, including safety, the environment, capacity and cost-efficiency areas, adapted where necessary in order to take into account the specific needs of the single European sky and relevant objectives for these areas and definition of a limited set of key performance indicators for measuring performance;

(c) establishment of Community-wide performance targets that shall be defined taking into consideration inputs identified at national level or at the level of functional airspace blocks;

(d) assessment of the national or functional airspace block performance targets on the basis of the national or functional airspace block plan; and

(e) monitoring of the national or functional airspace block performance plans, including appropriate alert mechanisms.

The Commission may add to the list of procedures referred to in this paragraph. These measures designed to amend non-essential elements of this Regulation, by supplementing it, shall be adopted in accordance with the regulatory procedure with scrutiny referred to in Article 5(4).

5. The establishment of the performance scheme shall take into account that en route services, terminal services and network functions are different and should be treated accordingly, if necessary also for performance-measuring purposes.

6. For the detailed functioning of the performance scheme, the Commission shall, by 4 December 2011, and within a suitable time frame with a view to meeting the relevant deadlines laid down in this Regulation, adopt implementing rules in accordance with the regulatory procedure referred to in Article 5(3). These implementing rules shall cover the following:

(a) the content and timetable of the procedures referred to in paragraph 4;

121

(b) the reference period and intervals for the assessment of the achievement of performance targets and setting of new targets;

(c) criteria for the setting up by the national supervisory authorities of the national or functional airspace block performance plans, containing the national or functional airspace block performance targets and the incentive scheme. The performance plans shall:

(i) be based on the business plans of the air navigation service providers;

(ii) address all cost components of the national or functional airspace block cost base;

(iii) include binding performance targets consistent with the Community-wide performance targets;

(d) criteria to assess whether the national or functional airspace block targets are consistent with the Community-wide performance targets during the reference period and to support alert mechanisms;

(e) general principles for the setting up by Member States of the incentive scheme;

(f) principles for the application of a transitional mechanism necessary for the adaptation to the functioning of the performance scheme not exceeding 12 months following the adoption of the implementing rules.

122

ANNEX II - FRAMEWORK FOR TRAFFIC ANALYSIS

The figure below shows the principal measures of traffic and their relationships, as well as corresponding indicators.

RPK(Revenue pax-km)

ASK(Available seat-km)

Flight distance (km)

Flight-hours(h)

Flights(N)

Load factor (%)

Average aircraft seat capacity

Average speed(km/h)

Average flight duration (h)

Average length (km)

Max. Take-Off Weight (t)

RPK(Revenue pax-km)

ASK(Available seat-km)

Flight distance (km)

Flight-hours(h)

Flights(N)

Load factor (%)

Average aircraft seat capacity

Average speed(km/h)

Average flight duration (h)

Average length (km)

Max. Take-Off Weight (t)

Framework for traffic analysis

The societal end result of air transport measured in Revenue Passenger Kilometres (RPK) results from a combination of factors:

the average flight length reflects the average distance between origins and destinations of flights in the network (not of passenger journeys)

average aircraft seating capacity, it is related to Maximum Take-Off Weight (MTOW);

load factors

123

ANNEX III - ACC TRAFFIC AND DELAY DATA (2006-2009)

State ACC Name

2006 2007 2008 2009 2006 2007 2008 2009 2006 2007 2008 2009

Albania Tirana 327 389 405 442 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0% 0% 0% 0%

Armenia Yerevan 119 0.0 0%

Austria Wien 1897 2072 2108 1976 1.1 1.4 2.1 1.6 73% 44% 35% 25%

Belgium Brussels 1630 1630 1606 1470 0.4 0.3 0.6 0.6 73% 76% 69% 58%

Bosnia-Herzegovina Sarajevo 2 2 3 2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0% 0% 0% 0%

Bulgaria Sofia 619 705 1187 1230 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0% 0% 49% 0%

Bulgaria Varna 434 458 344 0.0 0.0 0.0 0% 0% 0%

Croatia Zagreb 829 974 1039 1063 1.6 0.8 2.1 0.7 1% 5% 0% 0%

Cyprus Nicosia 590 660 739 729 0.8 1.6 2.7 2.4 1% 5% 3% 2%

Czech Republic Praha 1597 1690 1782 1707 1.0 0.9 0.5 0.3 18% 14% 11% 12%

Denmark Kobenhavn 1429 1493 1456 1354 0.6 0.3 2.6 0.1 41% 61% 13% 74%

Estonia Tallinn 332 386 433 401 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0% 0% 0% 0%

Finland Rovaniemi 96 92 92 92 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0% 0% 0% 0%

Finland Tampere 475 460 474 444 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 70% 83% 97% 55%

France Bordeaux 2178 2313 2324 2121 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 16% 11% 21% 29%

France Brest 2320 2490 2460 2248 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.1 1% 2% 1% 1%

France Marseille AC 2659 2868 2867 2692 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0% 0% 0% 0%

France Paris 3357 3476 3449 3265 1.2 1.0 1.0 0.7 67% 49% 48% 71%

France Reims 2305 2450 2457 2174 0.4 0.6 0.5 0.1 1% 2% 0% 6%

FYROM Skopje 315 330 336 337 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0% 0% 0% 0%

Germany Berlin 913 0.4 42%

Germany Bremen 1001 1741 1762 1623 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.4 75% 68% 42% 42%

Germany Langen 3504 3596 3577 3363 0.6 0.8 1.2 1.3 88% 87% 75% 53%

Germany Munchen 3521 3914 4021 3780 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 60% 55% 50% 53%

Germany Rhein 3709 3921 4012 3744 0.1 0.3 0.9 0.6 0% 0% 0% 0%

Greece Athinai+Macedonia 1492 1642 1699 1693 0.8 1.4 2.2 2.2 78% 59% 32% 47%

Hungary Budapest 1553 1588 1602 1572 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 67% 63% 100% 63%

Ireland Dublin 567 622 620 520 0.2 0.1 1.5 0.1 77% 86% 76% 99%

Ireland Shannon 1146 1205 1204 1086 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 13% 0% 6% 0%

Italy Brindisi 778 837 865 817 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 99% 93% 90% 99%

Italy Milano 1786 1893 1783 1664 1.4 0.8 0.2 0.1 79% 95% 96% 100%

Italy Padova 1715 1879 1799 1673 0.3 0.6 0.4 0.2 21% 39% 78% 89%

Italy Roma 2478 2705 2699 2585 0.8 0.8 0.5 0.1 76% 93% 98% 98%

Latvia Riga 416 476 515 460 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0% 0% 0% 0%

Lithuania Vilnius 356 476 583 515 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0% 0% 0% 0%

Maastricht Maastricht 4207 4410 4395 4068 0.3 0.6 0.5 0.0 0% 0% 0% 0%

Malta Malta 207 223 231 233 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100% 0% 0% 0%

Moldova Chisinau 75 94 110 119 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0% 0% 0% 0%

Netherlands Amsterdam 1433 1490 1439 1331 0.4 0.8 1.1 0.3 80% 91% 96% 86%

Norway Bodo 508 527 530 522 0.5 0.0 0.1 0.0 8% 28% 75% 100%

Norway Oslo 830 886 929 866 0.1 0.4 0.2 0.1 48% 46% 91% 89%

Norway Stavanger 523 556 558 540 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.4 1% 11% 22% 6%

Poland Warszawa 1246 1411 1558 1438 1.5 2.3 2.2 1.8 30% 15% 4% 3%

Portugal Lisboa 1035 1096 1121 1036 0.1 0.4 0.4 0.1 82% 30% 55% 83%

Portugal Santa Maria 258 265 283 274 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0% 0% 0% 0%

Romania Bucuresti 1136 1182 1212 1186 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0% 0% 100% 0%

Serbia and Montenegr Beograd 1045 1218 1314 1373 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4% 9% 0% 0%

Slovak Republic Bratislava 855 840 891 880 0.1 0.5 0.2 0.1 0% 0% 0% 0%

Slovenia Ljubjana 539 624 671 632 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0% 3% 19% 1%

Spain Barcelona AC+AP 2115 2321 2250 2033 0.9 0.5 0.4 0.2 20% 37% 48% 33%

Spain Madrid 2688 2904 2860 2609 1.6 1.9 1.1 1.2 63% 54% 32% 36%

Spain Palma 712 749 733 678 0.3 0.6 0.9 0.6 99% 99% 99% 77%

Spain Sevilla 1025 1100 1067 956 0.4 0.3 0.1 0.2 11% 20% 7% 16%

Spain Canarias Canarias 830 844 840 730 0.5 0.4 0.5 1.7 31% 35% 35% 9%

Sweden Malmo 1323 1366 1448 1271 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 13% 11% 2% 15%

Sweden Stockholm 1107 1116 1128 1028 0.0 0.5 0.1 0.1 90% 97% 89% 73%

Switzerland Geneva 1704 1832 1813 1645 0.8 1.0 0.8 0.4 18% 30% 36% 46%

Switzerland Zurich 2040 2127 2156 2014 1.6 1.8 1.1 0.8 21% 33% 28% 24%

Turkey Ankara 1310 1427 1544 1600 0.1 0.2 0.5 0.2 100% 78% 55% 55%

Turkey Istanbul 1165 1470 1567 1653 0.5 0.3 0.9 1.6 96% 100% 100% 99%

Ukraine Dnipropetrovs'k 61 60 45 0.0 0.0 0.0 0% 0% 0%

Ukraine Kharkiv 276 324 308 0.0 0.0 0.0 0% 0% 0%

Ukraine Kyiv 477 547 488 0.0 0.0 0.1 100% 0% 70%

Ukraine L'viv 371 428 416 0.0 0.0 0.0 0% 0% 0%

Ukraine Odesa 183 208 202 0.0 0.0 0.0 0% 0% 0%

Ukraine Simferopol 460 481 463 0.0 0.0 0.0 0% 0% 0%

Ukraine Donets'k 37 37 0.0 0.0 0% 0%

United Kingdom London AC 5349 5508 5427 4980 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.2 1% 0% 1% 1%

United Kingdom London TC 3738 3854 3780 3480 0.8 1.0 1.1 0.6 89% 85% 93% 81%

United Kingdom Manchester 1620 1666 1569 1352 0.6 0.3 0.2 0.1 20% 37% 39% 69%

Regulations on traffic volumes EGLL60, EHFIRAM, LEBLFIN, LECMARR1 have been reclassified as airport regulations. data source : EUROCONTROL

ACCs geographical areas might change thru times, preventing year to year comparison (e.g.: SOFIA and VARNA)

Airport delay share of total delayDaily Traffic Delay per flight (min/flight)

124

ANNEX IV - TRAFFIC COMPLEXITY

The PRU, in close collaboration with ANSPs, has defined a set of complexity indicators that could be applied in ANSP benchmarking. The complexity indicators are computed on a systematic basis for each day of the year. This annex presents for each ANSP the complexity score computed over the full year (365 days). The complexity indicators are based on the concept of “interactions”. Interactions arise when there are two aircraft in the same “place” at the same time. For the purpose of this study, an interaction is defined as the simultaneous presence of two aircraft in a cell of 20x20 nautical miles and 3,000 feet in height. For each ANSP the complexity score is the product of two components:

Traffic density indicator is a measure of the potential number of interactions between aircraft. The indicator is defined as the total duration of all interactions (in minutes) per flight-hour controlled in a given volume of airspace. The structural complexity originates from horizontal, vertical, and speed interactions. The Structural index is computed as the sum of the three indicators

Horizontal interactions indicator: A measure of the complexity of the flow structure based on the potential interactions between aircraft on different headings. The indicator is defined as the ratio of the duration of horizontal interactions to the total duration of all interactions.

Vertical interactions indicator: A measure of the complexity arising from aircraft in vertical evolution based on the potential interactions between climbing, cruising and descending aircraft. The indicator is defined as the ratio of the duration of vertical interactions to the total duration of all interactions

Speed interactions indicator: A measure of the complexity arising from the aircraft mix based on the potential interactions between aircraft of different speeds. The indicator is defined as the ratio of the duration of speed interactions to the total duration of all interactions

Complexity score = Traffic density x Structural index

125

ANSP Complexity score (2009)

Structural index Complexity score

Adjusted Density Vertical Horizontal Speed Total State ANSP

a *e a b c d e=b+c+d

BE Belgocontrol 13.0 9.3 0.43 0.53 0.44 1.40 CH Skyguide 11.6 11.0 0.28 0.56 0.21 1.05 UK NATS 11.2 10.4 0.38 0.41 0.30 1.09 DE DFS 11.1 10.3 0.30 0.53 0.26 1.08 MUAC MUAC 9.5 10.3 0.26 0.51 0.16 0.92 NL LVNL 9.2 9.6 0.24 0.38 0.34 0.96 AT Austro Control 7.5 8.1 0.21 0.49 0.21 0.92 CZ ANS CR 6.7 7.3 0.18 0.51 0.22 0.92 FR DSNA 6.5 9.3 0.16 0.39 0.14 0.69 IT ENAV 5.5 5.3 0.28 0.55 0.20 1.04 LY SMATSA 4.9 8.6 0.05 0.46 0.06 0.57 SI Slovenia Control 4.8 6.1 0.15 0.49 0.13 0.78 HU HungaroControl 4.7 7.3 0.08 0.44 0.13 0.65 SK LPS 4.3 5.3 0.15 0.48 0.18 0.82 ES Aena 4.1 5.8 0.18 0.40 0.12 0.71 DK NAVIAIR 3.7 4.0 0.18 0.54 0.20 0.93 HR Croatia Control 3.5 5.6 0.07 0.48 0.09 0.64 PL PANSA 3.3 3.7 0.13 0.51 0.22 0.87 TR DHMI 3.1 5.0 0.14 0.38 0.11 0.62 SE LFV/ANS Sweden 2.9 3.2 0.21 0.45 0.23 0.89 RO ROMATSA 2.8 4.9 0.07 0.36 0.15 0.57 MK MK CAA 2.8 4.8 0.10 0.40 0.08 0.58 CY DCAC Cyprus 2.6 4.0 0.15 0.39 0.10 0.64 BU ATSA Bulgaria 2.5 6.9 0.06 0.24 0.06 0.36 GR HCAA 2.4 3.9 0.13 0.39 0.11 0.63 NO Avinor 2.3 2.1 0.35 0.48 0.26 1.10 PT NAV Portugal (FIR Lisboa) 2.2 3.3 0.17 0.40 0.08 0.65 AL NATA Albania 2.0 4.6 0.06 0.32 0.05 0.43 LV LGS 1.9 3.0 0.09 0.41 0.14 0.64 FI Finavia 1.9 2.0 0.26 0.34 0.35 0.95 EE EANS 1.9 3.4 0.14 0.26 0.17 0.57 IE IAA 1.7 4.5 0.08 0.21 0.09 0.39 LT Oro Navigacija 1.7 3.2 0.06 0.34 0.13 0.54 UA UkSATSE 1.6 2.8 0.05 0.36 0.17 0.58 MD MoldATSA 0.9 1.3 0.07 0.39 0.20 0.65 AM ARMATS 0.7 1.0 0.10 0.36 0.19 0.65 MT MATS 0.6 1.0 0.12 0.37 0.12 0.62 Average 6.0 7.1 0.22 0.44 0.19 0.85

126

ANNEX V - ATFM DELAYS

The table below provides an overview of key information for the most en-route ATFM delay generating ACCs in Europe in 2009 (see Chapter 5).

IFR

flig

hts

in 2

009

('0

00)

3Y A

vg.

annu

al

grow

th r

ate

(09/

06)

08/0

7 gr

ow

th y

ear

on

year

09/0

8 gr

ow

th y

ear

on

year

Tot

al e

n-ro

ute

AT

FM

d

ela

y (m

in.)

% o

f tot

al e

n-ro

ute

AT

FM

del

ays

AT

C C

ap

aci

ty &

S

taff

ing

AT

C O

ther

(st

rike,

e

quip

men

t, et

c.)

Wea

ther

OT

HE

R (

Spe

cial

e

ven

t, m

ilita

ry, e

tc.)

Avg

. en

-rou

te d

elay

pe

r fli

ght

% o

f flig

hts

de

laye

d >

15

min

.

Total 2008 14 587 100% 76.0% 6.2% 9.7% 8.1%

Total 2009 8 891 100% 82.9% 4.0% 11.0% 2.1%

Warszawa 225 525 4.9% 10.7% -8.0% 900 10.1% 96.3% 1.3% 0.6% 1.8% 1.7 5.0%Nicosia 193 266 7.3% 12.4% -1.7% 621 7.0% 99.9% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 2.3 6.5%Wien 170 721 1.4% 2.0% -6.5% 858 9.7% 90.2% 0.0% 9.0% 0.7% 1.2 3.4%Madrid 96 952 -1.0% -1.2% -9.0% 710 8.0% 98.9% 0.2% 0.9% 0.0% 0.7 2.1%Zurich 83 735 -0.4% 1.7% -6.9% 445 5.0% 82.7% 0.0% 14.3% 3.1% 0.6 1.7%Rhein 78 1 367 0.3% 2.6% -6.9% 813 9.1% 80.2% 0.8% 17.6% 1.4% 0.6 1.7%Langen 74 1 227 -1.4% -0.2% -6.3% 774 8.7% 93.1% 0.0% 6.7% 0.2% 0.6 1.8%Zagreb 70 388 8.6% 6.9% 2.1% 280 3.1% 70.7% 0.2% 28.7% 0.5% 0.7 2.1%Athinai+Macedonia 54 618 4.3% 3.8% -0.6% 714 8.0% 98.1% 1.5% 0.0% 0.4% 1.2 2.8%Canarias 46 266 -4.2% -0.2% -13.3% 420 4.7% 85.5% 0.0% 14.5% 0.0% 1.6 2.9%

11 most congested ACCs

in 2009

Nr.

Of

days

with

en

-ro

ute

del

ay >

1m

in.

TRAFFIC ATFM DELAYS

The most en-route ATFM delay generating ACCs in 2009

The table provides an overview of key information for 20 airports with the highest airport ATFM delay in Europe in 2009 (see also Chapter 6) .

Arr

ival

flig

hts

in

200

9 ('0

00)

3Y A

vg.

ann

ual

gro

wth

rat

e

08/0

7 gr

owth

yea

r on

yea

r

09/0

8 gr

owth

yea

r on

yea

r

Min

utes

of

AT

FM

de

lay

('000

)

% o

f tot

al a

irpor

t A

TF

M d

elay

s in

20

09

AT

C C

AP

AC

ITY

&

Sta

ffin

g

AT

C O

ther

(st

rike

, eq

uipm

ent,

etc.

)

Wea

ther

OT

HE

R (

Spe

cia

l ev

ent,

mili

tary

, etc

.)

Avg

. airp

ort A

TF

M

dela

y pe

r a

rriv

al

Total 2008 9 233 100% 39.7% 6.8% 43.1% 10.4%

Total 2009 6 318 100% 41.7% 3.2% 48.8% 6.4%

Istanbul/Ataturk 135 5.9% 5.7% 3.9% 937 14.8% 58.6% 3.0% 10.4% 28.1% 6.9Frankfurt 231 -1.8% -1.4% -4.6% 740 11.7% 10.5% 0.0% 89.3% 0.1% 3.2London/Heathrow 233 -0.8% -0.6% -2.5% 398 6.3% 17.3% 0.4% 70.8% 11.6% 1.7Paris/Charles-De-Gaulle 262 -1.0% 1.4% -6.2% 385 6.1% 36.4% 0.2% 61.7% 1.7% 1.5Athens 103 3.6% -3.0% 6.4% 377 6.0% 70.5% 0.1% 14.1% 15.3% 3.7Madrid/Barajas 217 0.0% -2.9% -7.4% 330 5.2% 73.8% 0.2% 18.0% 8.0% 1.5Vienna 130 0.4% 4.5% -10.0% 264 4.2% 69.9% 1.9% 26.8% 1.4% 2.0Munich 197 -1.1% 0.2% -8.3% 261 4.1% 4.6% 0.0% 95.3% 0.2% 1.3Zurich 125 0.3% 3.1% -4.9% 143 2.3% 55.0% 0.0% 42.4% 2.6% 1.1Brussels 112 -3.1% -2.0% -10.7% 162 2.6% 14.9% 1.8% 47.7% 35.6% 1.4Amsterdam 201 -2.6% -1.8% -8.9% 125 2.0% 51.4% 0.0% 48.6% 0.0% 0.6Geneva 81 0.7% 1.8% -8.0% 116 1.8% 74.0% 1.5% 23.1% 1.4% 1.4Paris/Orly 112 -1.4% -1.2% -4.3% 148 2.3% 10.0% 53.4% 34.3% 2.3% 1.3London/City 38 -1.7% 3.3% -20.4% 71 1.1% 60.1% 1.2% 29.9% 8.9% 1.9Berlin-Tegel 77 3.8% 6.1% -2.6% 70 1.1% 46.1% 5.4% 24.0% 24.5% 0.9Diagoras 17 1.6% 0.2% -1.4% 73 1.2% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 4.4Palma De Mallorca 88 -2.3% -2.1% -8.2% 101 1.6% 73.3% 0.0% 23.2% 3.5% 1.1Pisa San Giusto 21 1.9% -1.4% -5.8% 66 1.1% 9.9% 41.8% 44.2% 4.2% 3.1Madrid/Torrejon 10 -5.5% -5.3% -22.7% 68 1.1% 90.8% 3.1% 0.0% 6.0% 7.1Cannes Mandelieu 7 -1.9% -4.2% -11.6% 65 1.0% 93.8% 0.1% 2.3% 3.8% 9.3

ATFM DELAYSTRAFFIC

Top 20 airports with the highest airport ATFM delay in Europe in 2009

127

ANNEX VI - TOP 50 MOST-CONSTRAINING POINTS

Extra miles Extra miles

Waypoint State On border

Constrained flights

Total 000’s

Per flight

Waypoint State

On border

Constrained flights

Total 000’s

Per flight

RESMI France No 49 902 1 204 24 BRD Italy No 17 751 432 24

RIDSU Germany No 27 503 1 150 42 VLC Spain No 36 778 427 12

MOU France No 51 343 1 114 22 BOL Italy No 38 637 426 11

TRA Switzerland No 40 284 812 20 ZMR Spain No 40 659 422 10

KUDES Switzerland No 38 930 768 20 *BCN Spain No 25 729 420 16

BOMBI Germany No 62 790 751 12 KEPER France No 17 200 415 24

ALSUS Cyprus No 19 561 698 36 CPT UK No 31 958 409 13

ARTAX France No 46 633 684 15 OLBEN Switzerland No 19 024 403 21

SPY Netherlands No 34 790 634 18 MILPA France No 24 817 398 16

MAKOL Bulgaria-Turkey T k

Yes 24 980 612 25 RLP France No 26 701 389 15

LOHRE Germany No 31 804 602 19 PIGOS France No 15 654 382 24

BAG Turkey No 34 597 584 17 IST Turkey No 15 421 382 25

KFK Turkey No 53 790 582 11 RBO Spain No 9 041 374 41

MUT Turkey No 16 864 573 34 PIXIS France No 21 513 370 17

MJV Spain No 23 466 566 24 TERKU France No 13 793 361 26

ALG Italy No 29 711 559 19 MAXIR France No 13 047 359 28

VADOM France No 12 677 504 40 RDS Greece No 21 561 357 17

TINTO Italy No 11 977 500 42 WAL UK No 43 505 352 8

BUK Turkey No 26 540 485 18 LERGA France No 33 994 344 10

DERAK France No 22 624 480 21 ELB Italy No 40 408 340 8

LAM UK No 24 495 471 19 VIBAS Spain No 25 224 339 13

DJL France No 31 721 464 15 TERPO France No 16 634 338 20

GEN Italy No 31 447 463 15 DIDAM Netherlands No 24 196 329 14

PAM Netherlands No 24 529 450 18 BAKUL France No 14 803 328 22

STG Spain No 26 223 449 17 ROMIR Switzerland No 11 505 325 28

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

DERAKKUDES

DJL

ZMR

WAL

VLC

TRA

STG

SPY

RLP

RDS

RBO

PAM

MUT

MOU

MJV

LAM

KFK

IST

GEN

ELB

CPT

BUK

BRD

BOL

BAG

ALG

*BCN

VIBAS

VADOM

TINTO

TERPO

TERKU

ROMIR

RIDSU

RESMI

PIXIS

PIGOS

OLBEN

MILPA

MAXIRMAKOL

LOHRE

LERGA

KEPER

DIDAM

BOMBI

ARTAX

ALSUS

Most constraining points in 2009

128

ANNEX VII - PEOPLE AFFECTED BY AIRCRAFT NOISE AT MAIN AIRPORTS

The tables below show the number of people exposed to noise from major European airports.

>55 >65 >75 >55 >65 >75Paris/Charles-De-Gaulle LFPG 525 171,300 1,500 0 224 38 14London/Heathrow EGLL 467 725,500 56,400 600 247 37 5Frankfurt EDDF 463 238,700 0 0 318 55 12Madrid/Barajas LEMD 435 39,800 2,700 0 160 33 5Amsterdam EHAM 402 43,700 300 0 189 26 4Munich EDDM 394 7,800 100 0 157 24 4Rome/Fiumicino LIRF 324 34,400 2,300 200 130 22 4Barcelona LEBL 279 17,000 100 0 39 12 3London/Gatwick EGKK 252 11,900 600 0 95 15 2Copenhagen/Kastrup EKCH 236 2,600 300 0 30 11 2Paris/Orly LFPO 224 109,300 16,900 1,400 51 24 6Stockholm/Arlanda ESSA 192 1,400 0 0 64 11 2Milan/Malpensa LIMC 188 37,200 900 0 90 14 3Palma De Mallorca LEPA 177 12,100 200 0 41 8 2Dublin EIDW 175 3,000 100 0 28 4 1Helsinki-Vantaa EFHK 172 100 0 0 76 12 1Manchester EGCC 171 94,000 4,500 0 69 11 2London/Stansted EGSS 167 9,400 400 0 74 10 1Prague/Ruzyne LKPR 160 5,800 0 0 53 9 4Hamburg EDDH 148 51,100 2,400 0 51 8 1Lisbon LPPT 136 136,500 11,500 0 36 6 1Warsaw/Okecie EPWA 134 4,180,000 80,000 0 39 6 1Nice LFMN 131 6,600 0 0 56 9 1Stuttgart EDDS 128 44,200 200 0 51 8 1Milan/Linate LIML 120 73,800 5,100 0 42 7 1Edinburgh EGPH 114 12,400 500 0 34 4 1Budapest/Ferihegy LHBP 109 281,700 2,600 0 127 22 4Marseille/Provence LFML 103 16,000 900 0 33 5 0Malaga LEMG 102 6,900 500 100 90 49 5Las Palmas GCLP 100 3,600 400 0 18 4 1Birmingham EGBB 99 47,900 2,300 0 31 4 1London/Luton EGGW 99 8,600 100 0 33 5 1Bergen/Flesland ENBR 89 0 0 0 43 6 1Toulouse/Blagnac LFBO 87 35,900 500 0 31 5 1Glasgow EGPF 81 63,500 400 0 37 4 1London/City EGLC 75 12,200 100 0 8 1 0Alicante LEAL 74 11,100 100 0 18 4 1Otopeni-Intl. LROP 72 3,000 200 0 42 5 1Valencia LEVC 69 41,900 100 0 19 3 1Hanover EDDV 68 26,000 700 0 51 7 1Aberdeen EGPD 67 14,600 200 0 16 2 0Stavanger/Sola ENZV 66 0 0 0 23 4 1East Midlands EGNX 66 10,500 700 0 35 6 1Bergamo/Orio Alserio LIME 65 40,300 1,600 0 36 5 1Napoli Capodichino LIRN 64 86,500 700 0 13 2 0Basle/Mulhouse LFSB 61 700 0 0 15 2 0Nurenberg EDDN 61 10,600 200 0 33 5 1Tenerife Norte GCXO 59 18,200 1,000 0 12 2 0Bristol/Lulsgate EGGD 59 4,100 0 0 22 4 1Gotenborg/Landvetter ESGG 57 300 0 0 19 3 1Luxembourg ELLX 54 300 0 0 63 11 2Newcastle EGNT 53 5,900 0 0 21 3 0Bordeaux/Merignac LFBD 52 4,000 0 0 18 3 1Torino/Caselle LIMF 50 7,600 1,300 0 20 4 1Trondheim/Vaernes ENVA 50 800 0 0 17 3 1

ICAO code

Airport Name

Area (km2) exposed to different noise bands

(Lden)Nr of people exposed to

different noise bands (Lden)IFR movements in 2009 ('000)

Source: European Topic Centre on Land Use and Spatial Information

129

ANNEX VIII - CHANGE IN REAL EN-ROUTE UNIT COSTS

The tables below show the change in real en route unit costs for States, except the five largest, between 2004 and 2013.

0.35

0.40

0.45

0.50

0.55

0.60

0.65

0.70

0.75

0.80

0.85

0.90

0.95

1.00

1.05

1.10

1.15

1.20

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

Switzerland Belgium/Lux. Romania Bulgaria Slovak Republic FYROM Moldova Austria Albania Slovenia Portugal (FIRLisboa)

Croatia

Eu

ro 2

00

8 /

km

2008 EUROCONTROL Area average

2008 sample average

0.30

0.35

0.40

0.45

0.50

0.55

0.60

0.65

0.70

0.75

0.80

0.85

0.90

0.95

1.00

200

42

005

200

62

007

200

82

009

201

02

011

201

22

013

200

42

005

200

62

007

200

82

009

201

02

011

201

22

013

200

42

005

200

62

007

200

82

009

201

02

011

201

22

013

200

42

005

200

62

007

200

82

009

201

02

011

201

22

013

200

42

005

200

62

007

200

82

009

201

02

011

201

22

013

200

42

005

200

62

007

200

82

009

201

02

011

201

22

013

200

42

005

200

62

007

200

82

009

201

02

011

201

22

013

200

42

005

200

62

007

200

82

009

201

02

011

201

22

013

200

42

005

200

62

007

200

82

009

201

02

011

201

22

013

200

42

005

200

62

007

200

82

009

201

02

011

201

22

013

200

42

005

200

62

007

200

82

009

201

02

011

201

22

013

200

42

005

200

62

007

200

82

009

201

02

011

201

22

013

Netherlands Denmark Turkey Ireland Malta Norway Hungary Sweden Greece Czech Republic Cyprus Finland

Eur

o 20

08 /

km

2008 EUROCONTROL Area average

2008 sample average

130

ANNEX IX - LIST OF AIRPORTS APPLYING TERMINAL CHARGES

AUSTRIA 1 Charging Zone for 6 aerodromes FRANCE ITALY

Wien Pau/Pyrénées Roma Urbe

Linz Perpignan/Rivesaltes Salerno

Salzburg Poitiers/Biard Torino Aeritalia

Innsbruck Quimper/Pluguffan Venezia Lido

Graz Reims/Champagne LATVIA Below 50.000 movements

Klagenfurt Rennes/St-Jacques LITHUANIA 1 Charging Zone for 3 aerodromes

BELGIUM 1 Charging Zone for 1 aerodrome Rodez/Marcillac Vilnius

Brussels Rouen/Vallée-de-Seine Kaunas

BULGARIA 1 Charging Zone for 5 aerodromes Saint-Etienne/Bouthéon Palanga

Sofia Saint-Nazaire/Montoir LUXEMBOURG 1 Charging Zone for 1 aerodrome

Varna Tarbes-Lourdes Pyrénées MALTA Below 50.000 movements

Burgas Tours/Val de Loire NETHERLANDS 1 Charging Zone for 4 aerodromes

Plovdiv Toussus/Le-Noble Mainport Schipol

Garna Oryahovitsa Angers Rotterdam

CYPRUS 1 Charging Zone for 2 aerodromes Albert Bray Eelde

Larnaca Angoulème Beek

Paphos GERMANY 1 Charging Zone for 16 aerodromes POLAND 1 Charging Zone for 11 aerodromes

CZECH REPUBLIC 1 Charging Zone for 4 aerodromes Bremen Warsaw

Praha-Ruzyně Dresden Krakow

Brno-Tuřany Dusseldorf Katowice

Ostrava-Mošnov Erfurt Gdansk

Karlovy Vary Frankfurt Wroclaw Airport

DENMARK 2 Charging Zones for 3 aerodromes Stutgart Poznan

København-(Charging Zone-1) Hamburg Szczecin

Roskilde-(Charging Zone-1) Hannover Bydgoszcz

Billund (Charging Zone-2) Cologne/Bonn Rzeszow

ESTONIA Below 50.000 movements Leipzig/Halle Lodz

FINLAND 1 Charging Zone for 1 aerodrome Munich Zielona Gora

Helsinki-Vantaa Munster/Osnabruck PORTUGAL 1 Charging Zone for 9 aerodromes

FRANCE 1 Charging Zone for 64 aerodromes Nuremberg Lisboa

Charles de Gaulle Saarbrucken Porto

Orly Berlin Tegel Faro

Nice Berlin Tempelhof (closed) Madeira

Lyon Berlin Schonefeld Other Aerodromes (5 aerodromes):

Marseille GREECE 1 Charging Zone for 1 aerodrome Porto Santo

Toulouse Athens Ponta Delgada

Bordeaux HUNGARY 1 Charging Zone for 1 aerodrome Santa Maria

Bale Budapest Horta

Nantes IRELAND 1 Charging Zone for 3 aerodromes Flores

Strasbourg Dublin ROMANIA 1 Charging Zone for 1 aerodrome

Clermont Cork Bucharest Henri Coanda

Le Bourget Shannon SLOVAK REPUBLICBelow 50.000 movements

Other aerodromes (52 aerodromes): ITALY 1 Charging Zone for 39 aerodromes * SLOVENIA 1 Charging Zone for 3 aerodromes

Agen/La-Garenne Bari Ljubljana

Ajaccio/Campo-Dell'Oro Orio al Serio Maribor

Annecy/Meythet Bologna Portoroz

Avignon/Caumont Cagliari SPAIN 1 Charging Zone for 12 aerodromes

Bastia/Poretta Catania Madrid

Beauvais/Tillé Firenze Barcelona

Bergerac/Roumanière Fumicino Palma de Mallorca

Béziers/Vias Genova Alicante

Biarritz/Bayonne-Anglet Milano Linote Valencia

Brest/Guipavas Milano Malpensa Bilboa

Caen/Carpiquet Napoli Malaga

Calvi/Sainte-Catherine Olbia Las Palmas

Cannes/Mandelieu Palermo Tenerife N

Carcassonne/Salvaza Torino Caselle Tenerife S

Chalons/Vatry Venezia Tessera Ibıza

Chambéry/Aix-les-Bains Other aerodromes (27 aerodromes): Sevilla

Châteauroux/Déols Albenga SWEDEN 2 Charging Zones for 2 aerodromes

Cherbourg/Maupertus Alghero Stockholm-Arlanda

Deauville/Saint-Gatien Ancona Falconara Goteborg-Landvetter

Dijon/Longvic Bolzano UNITED KINGDOM 2 Charging Zones for 14 aerodromes

Dinard/Pleurtuit-Saint-Malo Brescia Montichiari Gatwick (Zone B)

Dôle/Tavaux Crotone Heathrow (Zone B)

Figari/Sud-Corse Cuneo Manchester (Zone B)

Grenoble/Saint-Geoirs Foggia Stansted (Zone B)

Hyères/Le-Palyvestre Forlì Aberdeen (Zone A)

Istres/Le-Tubé Grottaglie Belfast International (Zone A)

Lannion Lamezia Birmingham (Zone A)

La-Rochelle/Ile de Ré Lampedusa Bristol (Zone A)

Le-Havre/Octeville Padova Edinburgh (Zone A)

Lille/Lesquin Pantelleria Glasgow (Zone A)

Limoges/Bellegarde Parma London City (Zone A)

Lorient/Lann-Bihoué Perugia London Luton (Zone A)

Lyon/Bron Pescara Newcastle (Zone A)

Metz-Nancy/Lorraine Reggio Calabria East Midlands (Zone A)

Montpellier/Méditerranée Ronchi dei Legionari

Nîmes/Garons Rieti

*Ciampino-Ami, Treviso S.A.-Ami, Rimini-Ami, Pisa-Ami, Villafranca-Ami, Grosseto - Ami, Brindisi - Ami, Trapani - Ami not included as no data provided for 2008 and 2009

131

ANNEX X - ANSP PERFORMANCE SHEETS

The table below gives the data sources used to compile the ANSP Performance sheets. Please note that data from ACE are provisional: they are those available on 17 May, 2010.

TRAFFIC Source IFR Flight CFMU IFR flights controlled by the ANSP.

For EANS, LGS, Oro Navigacija : source is ACE: D10 – Total IFR flights controlled by the ANSP. F4 – IFR flights controlled by the ANSP (Forecast).

Seasonal Variation CFMU Complexity Report Complexity metrics for ANSP Benchmarking analysis (report by the ACE Working group on

Complexity) [Ref.15].

KEY DATA Total IFR flights controlled (‘000)

CFMU IFR flights controlled by the ANSP. For EANS, LGS, Oro Navigacija : source is ACE.

D10 – Total IFR flights controlled by the ANSP. F4 – IFR flights controlled by the ANSP (Forecast).

IFR flight-hours controlled (‘000)

CFMU IFR flights hours controlled by the ANSP. For EANS, LGS, Oro Navigacija : source is ACE: D14 –Total IFR flight hours controlled by the ANSP. F6 –Total IFR flight hours controlled by the ANSP (Forecast).

IFR airport movements controlled (‘000)

CFMU IFR airport movements at airports controlled by the ANSP For EANS, LGS, Oro Navigacija : source is ACE:

D16- IFR airport movements controlled by the ANSP. F7- IFR airport movements controlled by the ANSP (Forecast).

En Route ATFM delays (‘000 minutes)

CFMU ATFM delays due to a regulation applied on a sector or an en-route point. ATFM delays: see Glossary.

Airport ATFM Delays (‘000 minutes)

CFMU ATFM delays due to a regulation applied on an airport or a group of airports

Total Staff ACE 56 C14 -TOTAL STAFF [En route + Terminal] (FTE = full time equivalent). ATCOs in OPS ACE C4 - ATCOs in OPS [En route + Terminal].

F10 + F13 :Number of “ATCOs in OPS” planned to be operational at year end [ACC+APP+TWR].

ATM/CNS provision costs (million €2004)

ACE

A12 – TOTAL “Controllable ANSP costs” [En-route + Terminal] in real term. F14 - TOTAL “Controllable ANSP costs” [En-route + Terminal] in real term.

Capital Investment (M €) ACE F34 : TOTAL En route + Terminal CAPEX (see Glossary).

SAFETY ANSP Annual Report published by the ANSP + other reports.

COST-EFFECTIVENESS ATM/CNS provision Cost Per composite Flight hour

ACE

ATM/CNS provision costs in real term / Composite Flight hours. Composite Flight Hours: see Glossary.

Employment Cost Per ATCO hour

ACE

Employment Cost in real term: C15: Staff costs for “ATCOs in OPS” [En-route + Terminal]. ATCO hours: D20: Sum of “ATCO in OPS” hours on duty [ACC+APP+TWR].

Support Cost Per Composite Flight Hour

ACE

Support Cost in real term: [ATM/CNS provision costs - Employment Cost]. Composite flight hour: see Glossary.

Composite flight hours per ATCO hours

ACE

Composite flight hours: see Glossary. ATCO hours: D20: Sum of “ATCO in OPS” hours on duty [ACC+APP+TWR].

EN ROUTE ATFM DELAY 57 Days with En route delay per flight > 1 minute

CFMU Number of days where en route ATFM delay per flight > 1 min in the ACC. En-route ATFM delay: see Glossary.

En route AFM delay per flight

CFMU The ACC selected is the ACC which as the maximum number of days with en-route delay per flight > 1 minute in the year covered by the report.

En route ATFM delay CFMU Days with delays: Days with En route delay greater than 1 minute in the ACC. % flights delayed CFMU Number of flights delayed due to en-route ATFM regulation divided by the total number of

flights. Delay per delayed flight CFMU En route ATFM delay divided by the number of flights.

AIRPORT ATFM DELAY ATFM Delay per Arrival flight

CFMU ATFM Delay due to airport regulations divided by the number of flights landing at these airports. (For all the airports controlled by the ANSP) 58.

ATFM Delay per Arrival flight (Weather – Other)

CFMU Same as above but with the split between delay due to weather or other delays.

Airports with ATFM delays CFMU List of Top 10 Airports with the highest Airport ATFM delay per arrival flight.

56 See “Specification for Information Disclosure, V. 2.6” (DEC ‘08) document for description of code (e.g. D10). 57 Regulations on traffic volumes EGLL60, EHFIRAM, LEBLFIN, LECMARR1 have been reclassified as airport

regulations. 58 Delays due to groups of airports are allocated proportionally to the traffic at these airports.

132

ANSP name Country Page

Aena Spain A-1

ANS CR Czech Republic A-2

ARMATS Armenia A-3

ATSA Bulgaria Bulgaria A-4

Austro Control Austria A-5

Avinor Norway A-6

Belgocontrol Belgium A-7

Croatia Control Croatia A-8

DCAC Cyprus Cyprus A-9

DFS Germany A-10

DHMİ Turkey A-11

DSNA France A-12

EANS Estonia A-13

ENAV Italy A-14

Finavia Finland A-15

HCAA Greece A-16

HungaroControl Hungary A-17

IAA Ireland A-18

LFV/ANS Sweden Sweden A-19

LGS Latvia A-20

LPS Slovak Republic A-21

LVNL Netherlands A-22

MATS Malta A-23

MK CAA FYROM A-24

MoldATSA Moldova A-25

MUAC A-26

NATA Albania Albania A-27

NATS United Kingdom A-28

NAV Portugal (FIR Lisboa) Portugal A-29

NAVIAIR Denmark A-30

Oro Navigacija Lithuania A-31

PANSA Poland A-32

ROMATSA Romania A-33

Skyguide Switzerland A-34

Slovenia Control Slovenia A-35

SMATA Serbia and Montenegro A-36

UkSATSE Ukraine A-37

Traffic Key data 2007 2008 2009(F)

Total IFR flights controlled ('000) 1897 1864 1683IFR flight-hours controlled ('000) 1420 1410 1270IFR airport movements controlled ('000) 2114 2047 1821

En Route ATFM delays ('000 minutes) 1398 1063 1309Airport ATFM delays ('000 minutes) 1501 809 600

Total Staff 3966 3973ATCOs in OPS 1966 2005 2064*

ATM/CNS provision costs (million €2008) 1175 1214 1197*Capital Investment (million €2008) 136 30 33*

* Forecast

source: Memoria 2008 (ANSP annual report)

Safety

Cost effectiveness

ESARR 2 severity classification.

"The ACI (Airports Council International) index is is defined as the number of incidents-accidents occurring on the platform for each 1,000 operations. Following the recommendations of the ACI, platform incidents are divided into six categories: A and B (referring to incidents that cause damage to aircrafts); C, D and E (relating to incidents that cause damage to vehicles or airport installations); and F (for leaks and spillages). As can be seen from the attached graphs, the two indices have gone down. In this respect, the index referring to type F incidents-accidents fell slightly in 2008, whilst that corresponding to incident-accidents A-E has dropped from 0.26 to 0.21."

(Extract from ANSP's 2008 annual report).

0

Aena, Spain

De

lay

( '00

0 m

in)

De

lay

per

del

ayed

flig

ht

En Route ATFM delay

Day

s w

ith

del

ays>

1m

% fl

ight

s de

laye

d

De

lay

( '00

0 m

in)

De

lay

per

del

ayed

flig

ht

ACC

Madrid □ 96 4.7% 16 710Canarias ∆ 46 4.0% 39 420Sevilla ◊ 27 1.2% 17 72Palma ○ 11 0.8% 16 32Barcelona A. − 4 0.7% 15 75

Airport ATFM delay

Day

s w

ith

del

ays>

1m

% fl

ight

s de

laye

d

Del

ay p

er

arr

ival

flig

ht

Arr

ival

flig

hts

('000

)

De

lay

( '00

0 m

in)

De

lay

per

del

ayed

flig

ht

Arr

ival

flig

hts

('000

)

Del

ay p

er

arr

iva

l flig

ht

Airport

Madrid/Bara. 1.5 217 Malaga 0.3 51Palma De Mal. 1.1 88 Barcelona 0.2 139Arrecife Lan. 0.8 21 Alicante 0.2 37Tenerife Sur. 0.5 24 Las Palmas 0.2 50Ibiza 0.3 25 Fuerteventur. 0.1 18

A - 1

Del

ay p

er

arr

ival

flig

ht

Arr

ival

flig

hts

('000

)

Arr

ival

flig

hts

('000

)

Del

ay p

er

arr

iva

l flig

ht

Madrid

0

1

2

3

4

5

Jan Mar May Jul Sep Nov

60708090

100110120

2006 2007 2008 2009F

ATM/CNS provision Costs

Composite flight hours

in €2008 per hour

191191180

2006 2007 2008

in €2008 per hour

0

200

400

600

800

2006 2007 2008 2009F

in flights per day

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

De

cJa

nM

ar

Ap

rM

ay

Jun

Jul

Au

gS

ep

Oct

No

vD

ec

IFR Flights Seasonal variation Complexity

Low

Employment Cost per ATCO hour

Support Cost per comp. flight hour

Productivity composite flight hour

per ATCO hour

En route ATFM delay En route ATFM delay per flight

in minute per flight

High


in €2008 per hour

250 270253

2006 2007 2008

0.540.560.55

2006 2007 2008

per composite flight hour

Days with en route delay

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

2006 2007 2008 2009

0

1

2

3


Weather Other ATFM Delay per arrival flight

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2006 2007 2008 2009

Airports with ATFM DelayATFM Delay per arrival flight

per flight > 1 minute in days ACC(s)

in minute per flight in minute per flight

120%Peak Week / Avg Week =

Avg

All Airports All Airports

in thousand flights

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

2006 2007 2008 2009

-10%-2%+8%

index 100 in 2006






* Forecast

source: ANS CR

ACC

Praha □ 16 1.8% 17 182

Airport

Prague/Ruzy. 0.3 80

A - 2

Airport ATFM delay

Day

s w

ith

del

ays>

1m

% fl

ight

s de

laye

d

Safety

Cost effectiveness


"No case was recorded in 2008 in which ANS CR employees were involved in or directly caused an air accident or seriously endangered the safety of air transport. Incidents in air traffic caused by ANS CR when providing ATS show a long-term stable development of both the number of incidents and the seriousness of their impact on the safety of air traffic. Only five incidents occurred in 2008 of which, in accordance with the ICAO classification, one was assessed as “Major Incident” (third degree on a five-point scale of seriousness) and one as “Significant Incident” (second lowest degree). The remaining cases were as assessed as “No Effect”. In spite of the stable increase of air traffic in the airspace and airports in the Czech Republic, both the number of incidents and their severity is declining.”


0

ANS CR, Czech Republic

Del

ay p

er

arr

ival

flig

ht

Arr

ival

flig

hts

('000

)

De

lay

( '00

0 m

in)

De

lay

per

del

ayed

flig

ht

Arr

ival

flig

hts

('000

)

Del

ay p

er

arr

iva

l flig

ht

En Route ATFM delay

Praha

0

1

2

3

4

5


60708090

100110120

2006 2007 2008 2009F



in €2008 per hour

8310691

2006 2007 2008

in €2008 per hour

0100200300400500600

2006 2007 2008 2009F

in flights per day

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

De

cJa

nM

ar

Ap

rM

ay

Jun

Jul

Au

gS

ep

Oct

No

vD

ec


Low




per ATCO hour



High


in €2008 per hour

365 342378

2006 2007 2008

0.950.930.96

2006 2007 2008



0

20

40

60

80

100

120

2006 2007 2008 2009

0

1

2

3



0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2006 2007 2008 2009





Avg


in thousand flights

0

200

400

600

800

2006 2007 2008 2009

-5%+6%+6%

index 100 in 2006


Total IFR flights controlled ('000) 48IFR flight-hours controlled ('000) 11IFR airport movements controlled ('000) 19

En Route ATFM delays ('000 minutes) 0Airport ATFM delays ('000 minutes) 0

Total Staff 510**ATCOs in OPS 95**

ATM/CNS provision costs (million €2008) *Capital Investment (million €2008) *

** source:ARMATS

ARMATS, Armenia

De

lay

( '00

0 m

in)

De

lay

per

del

ayed

flig

ht

En Route ATFM delay

Safety

Cost effectiveness


There were no accidents or serious incidents caused by ARMATS in 2009. There were 17 recorded and internally investigated occurrences, 10 Incidents – 2 significant (C) with direct and indirect ATM contribution, 8 – with no safety effect (E). The main numbers of incidents happened in the approach phase of operations. The other 7 ATM Specific Occurrences – were no impact on ability to provide safe ATM Services (the back up system was malfunctioning). No ATS-related Runway incursions took place caused by ARMATS.

ARMATS applied the ESARR 2 Severity classification scheme. The Safety Management System is built in full compliance with ESARR 3 and well structured, the safety department is independent unit. The TOKAI has implemented as an investigation tool. Risk assessment of changes and their mitigations always carrying out in line with ESARR 4 requirements. The licensing procedures are based on ESARR 5 requirements and it is coordinated with National CAA.(Source : ARMATS)

De

lay

( '00

0 m

in)

De

lay

per

del

ayed

flig

ht

Day

s w

ith

del

ays>

1m

% fl

ight

s de

laye

d

ACC

Yerevan □ 0 0.0% 0

Del

ay p

er

arr

ival

flig

ht

Arr

ival

flig

hts

('000

)

De

lay

( '00

0 m

in)

De

lay

per

del

ayed

flig

ht

Arr

ival

flig

hts

('000

)

Del

ay p

er

arr

iva

l flig

ht

Airport ATFM delay

Day

s w

ith

del

ays>

1m

% fl

ight

s de

laye

d

Airport

A - 3

Del

ay p

er

arr

ival

flig

ht

Arr

ival

flig

hts

('000

)

Arr

ival

flig

hts

('000

)

Del

ay p

er

arr

iva

l flig

ht

Yerevan

0

1

2

3

4

5


60

70

80

90

100

110

2006 2007 2008 2009



in €2008 per hour

2006 2007 2008

in €2008 per hour

0001111

2006 2007 2008 2009F

in flights per day

020406080

100120140160

Jan

Fe

bM

ar

Ap

rM

ay

Jun

Jul

Au

gS

ep

Oct

No

vD

ec


Low




per ATCO hour



High


in €2008 per hour

2006 2007 2008 2006 2007 2008



0

20

40

60

80

100

2009

0

1

2

3



0.0

0.5

1.0

2006 2007 2008 2009





Avg


in thousand flights

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

2006 2007 2008 2009

* ARMATS will join the ATM Cost-Effectiveness benchmarking exercise in 2010






* Forecast

source : 2008 Annual report

Safety

Cost effectiveness

National severity classification.

The absolute number of aviation incidents in 2008 shows a decrease, in comparison with the previous year, for the 12-year period under evaluation, while the relative number (AI per 100,000 flights) is below the average for the period. It can be alleged with a high degree of probability that the number of events in categories A and B compared to previous years, can be attributed both to the dynamic process of upgrading and updating all the elements of the ATM system (technology, equipment, personnel), and to the considerable improvement in the operation of the systems of voluntary and compulsory reporting.


ATSA Bulgaria, Bulgaria

De

lay

( '00

0 m

in)

De

lay

per

del

ayed

flig

ht

En Route ATFM delay

Day

s w

ith

del

ays>

1m

% fl

ight

s de

laye

d

De

lay

( '00

0 m

in)

De

lay

per

del

ayed

flig

ht

ACC

Sofia □ 0 0.0% 0

Airport ATFM delay

Day

s w

ith

del

ays>

1m

% fl

ight

s de

laye

d

Del

ay p

er

arr

ival

flig

ht

Arr

ival

flig

hts

('000

)

De

lay

( '00

0 m

in)

De

lay

per

del

ayed

flig

ht

Arr

ival

flig

hts

('000

)

Del

ay p

er

arr

iva

l flig

ht

Airport

A - 4

Del

ay p

er

arr

ival

flig

ht

Arr

ival

flig

hts

('000

)

Arr

ival

flig

hts

('000

)

Del

ay p

er

arr

iva

l flig

ht

Sofia

0

1

2

3

4

5


60

80

100

120

140

2006 2007 2008 2009F



in €2008 per hour

474850

2006 2007 2008

in €2008 per hour

0100200300400500600

2006 2007 2008 2009F

in flights per day

0

500

1000

1500

2000

De

cJa

nM

ar

Ap

rM

ay

Jun

Jul

Au

gS

ep

Oct

No

vD

ec


Low




per ATCO hour



High


in €2008 per hour

441329359

2006 2007 2008

0.640.560.50

2006 2007 2008



0

20

40

60

80

100

2006 2007 2008 2009

0

1

2

3



0.0

0.5

1.0

2006 2007 2008 2009





Avg


in thousand flights

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

2006 2007 2008 2009

-0%+8%+11%

index 100 in 2006






* Forecast

ACC

Wien □ 170 7.3% 16 858

Airport

Vienna 2.0 130Innsbruck 0.9 11Salzburg 0.6 15

A - 5

Airport ATFM delay

Day

s w

ith

del

ays>

1m

% fl

ight

s de

laye

d

Safety

Cost effectiveness


No information found in Annual Report

Austro Control, Austria

Del

ay p

er

arr

ival

flig

ht

Arr

ival

flig

hts

('000

)

De

lay

( '00

0 m

in)

De

lay

per

del

ayed

flig

ht

Arr

ival

flig

hts

('000

)

Del

ay p

er

arr

iva

l flig

ht

En Route ATFM delay

Wien

0

1

2

3

4

5


60708090

100110120

2006 2007 2008 2009F



in €2008 per hour

146137124

2006 2007 2008

in €2008 per hour

0

100

200

300

400

500

2006 2007 2008 2009F

in flights per day

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

De

cJa

nM

ar

Ap

rM

ay

Jun

Jul

Au

gS

ep

Oct

No

vD

ec


Low




per ATCO hour



High


in €2008 per hour

278 259251

2006 2007 2008

1.040.970.92

2006 2007 2008



0

50

100

150

200

2006 2007 2008 2009

0

1

2

3

4



0.00.51.01.52.02.53.03.5

2006 2007 2008 2009





Avg


in thousand flights

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

2006 2007 2008 2009

-7%+3%+8%

index 100 in 2006






* Forecast

source: AVINOR - flysikkerhet og hms 2008

ACC

Stavanger □ 46 2.0% 17 67Oslo ∆ 1 0.1% 15 4Bodo ◊ 0 0.0% 0

Airport

Oslo/Garder. 0.3 108Bergen/Flesl. 0.1 44Stavanger/So. 0.0 33Tromso/Langn. 0.0 18Bodo 0.0 19

A - 6

Airport ATFM delay

Day

s w

ith

del

ays>

1m

% fl

ight

s de

laye

d

Safety

Cost effectiveness


"There were no aviation accidents in Norwegian aviation where Avinor was a contributory party in 2008. Five serious aviation incidents where Avinor was a contributory party were recorded. The Accident Investigation Board’s (AIBN) investigations have a broader scope than those undertaken by Avinor, and they may therefore reach different conclusions. The corresponding figures for 2007 were no aviation accidents and one serious aviation incident. The corresponding figures for 2006 were one aviation accident and eight serious aviation incidents."


0

Avinor, Norway

Del

ay p

er

arr

ival

flig

ht

Arr

ival

flig

hts

('000

)

De

lay

( '00

0 m

in)

De

lay

per

del

ayed

flig

ht

Arr

ival

flig

hts

('000

)

Del

ay p

er

arr

iva

l flig

ht

En Route ATFM delay

Stavanger

0

1

2

3

4

5


60

80

100

120

140

2006 2007 2008 2009F



in €2008 per hour

7710075

2006 2007 2008

in €2008 per hour

0

100

200

300

400

500

2006 2007 2008 2009F

in flights per day

0

500

1000

1500

2000

De

cJa

nM

ar

Ap

rM

ay

Jun

Jul

Au

gS

ep

Oct

No

vD

ec


Low




per ATCO hour



High


in €2008 per hour

215 250262

2006 2007 2008

0.770.730.70

2006 2007 2008



0

20

40

60

80

100

2006 2007 2008 2009

0

1

2

3



0.0

0.5

1.0

2006 2007 2008 2009





Avg


in thousand flights

0100200300

400500600700

2006 2007 2008 2009

-4%+3%+4%

index 100 in 2006






* Forecast

Safety

Cost effectiveness


"In 2008, Belgocontrol managed a total of 1,147,324 movements en-route, on approach and at the five Belgian public airports. It also recorded a total of 32 SROs (36 in 2007 and 31 in 2006) in which our units were involved. Class A and B incidents, considered to be the most serious, amounted to 15 in 2008. This is more than the minimum of 6 A and B incidents in 2004 but much less than the 22 incidents in 2000 or the 19 incidents in 2001."


0

Belgocontrol, Belgium

De

lay

( '00

0 m

in)

De

lay

per

del

ayed

flig

ht

En Route ATFM delay

Day

s w

ith

del

ays>

1m

% fl

ight

s de

laye

d

De

lay

( '00

0 m

in)

De

lay

per

del

ayed

flig

ht

ACC

Brussels □ 27 1.3% 18 129

Airport

Brussels 1.4 112Liege/Liege 0.6 15Charleroi 0.0 15

A - 7

Airport ATFM delay

Day

s w

ith

del

ays>

1m

% fl

ight

s de

laye

d

Del

ay p

er

arr

ival

flig

ht

Arr

ival

flig

hts

('000

)

De

lay

( '00

0 m

in)

De

lay

per

del

ayed

flig

ht

Arr

ival

flig

hts

('000

)

Del

ay p

er

arr

iva

l flig

ht

Brussels

0

1

2

3

4

5


60

70

80

90

100

110

2006 2007 2008 2009F



in €2008 per hour

124127124

2006 2007 2008

in €2008 per hour

0

200

400

600

800

2006 2007 2008 2009F

in flights per day

0

500

1000

1500

2000

De

cJa

nM

ar

Ap

rM

ay

Jun

Jul

Au

gS

ep

Oct

No

vD

ec


Low




per ATCO hour



High


in €2008 per hour

561 510509

2006 2007 2008

0.690.680.65

2006 2007 2008



0

20

40

60

80

100

2006 2007 2008 2009

0

1

2

3

4



0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2006 2007 2008 2009





Avg


in thousand flights

0100

200300400500

600700

2006 2007 2008 2009

-9%-1%+5%

index 100 in 2006

source: 2008 Annual Report






* Forecast

ACC

Zagreb □ 70 4.2% 17 280

Airport

A - 8

Airport ATFM delay

Day

s w

ith

del

ays>

1m

% fl

ight

s de

laye

d

Safety

Cost effectiveness

No Annual Report found

Croatia Control, Croatia

Del

ay p

er

arr

ival

flig

ht

Arr

ival

flig

hts

('000

)

De

lay

( '00

0 m

in)

De

lay

per

del

ayed

flig

ht

Arr

ival

flig

hts

('000

)

Del

ay p

er

arr

iva

l flig

ht

En Route ATFM delay

Zagreb

0

1

2

3

4

5


60

80

100

120

140

2006 2007 2008 2009F



in €2008 per hour

646062

2006 2007 2008

in €2008 per hour

0

100

200

300

400

2006 2007 2008 2009F

in flights per day

0

500

1000

1500

2000

De

cJa

nM

ar

Ap

rM

ay

Jun

Jul

Au

gS

ep

Oct

No

vD

ec


Low




per ATCO hour



High


in €2008 per hour

281 239260

2006 2007 2008

0.680.670.63

2006 2007 2008



0

50

100

150

200

2006 2007 2008 2009

0

1

2

3



0.0

0.5

1.0

2006 2007 2008 2009





Avg


in thousand flights

0

100

200

300

400

500

2006 2007 2008 2009

+2%+6%+17%

index 100 in 2006




Total Staff 250 n/aATCOs in OPS 66 68 67*

ATM/CNS provision costs (million €2008) 39 35 49*Capital Investment (million €2008) n/a 5 5*

* Forecast

ACC

Nicosia □ 193 10.1% 23 621

Airport

Larnaca 0.4 24

A - 9

Airport ATFM delay

Day

s w

ith

del

ays>

1m

% fl

ight

s de

laye

d

Safety

Cost effectiveness


DCAC Cyprus, Cyprus

Del

ay p

er

arr

ival

flig

ht

Arr

ival

flig

hts

('000

)

De

lay

( '00

0 m

in)

De

lay

per

del

ayed

flig

ht

Arr

ival

flig

hts

('000

)

Del

ay p

er

arr

iva

l flig

ht

En Route ATFM delay

Nicosia

0

1

2

3

4

5


60

80

100

120

140

2006 2007 2008 2009F



in €2008 per hour

564442

2006 2007 2008

in €2008 per hour

0

100

200

300

400

2006 2007 2008 2009F

in flights per day

0

200

400

600

800

1000

De

cJa

nM

ar

Ap

rM

ay

Jun

Jul

Au

gS

ep

Oct

No

vD

ec


Low




per ATCO hour



High


in €2008 per hour

271181

253

2006 2007 2008

0.890.850.84

2006 2007 2008



0

50

100

150

200

250

2006 2007 2008 2009

0

1

2

3



0.0

0.5

1.0

2006 2007 2008 2009





Avg


in thousand flights

050

100150

200250300350

2006 2007 2008 2009

-2%+12%+12%

index 100 in 2006






* Forecast

source : DFS 2008 mobility report

ACC

Rhein □ 78 3.9% 15 813Langen ∆ 74 3.0% 21 774Bremen ◊ 20 1.5% 17 151Munchen ○ 15 0.9% 19 235

Airport

Frankfurt 3.2 231 Hamburg 0.5 74Munich 1.3 196 Cologne/Bonn 0.1 65Berlin-Tegel 0.9 77 Schoenefeld-. 0.1 34Dusseldorf 0.9 107 Hanover 0.0 34Stuttgart 0.5 64 Muenster-Osn. 0.0 13

A - 10

Airport ATFM delay

Day

s w

ith

del

ays>

1m

% fl

ight

s de

laye

d

Safety

Cost effectiveness


“While the number of aircraft movements increased, the number of occurrences decreased. In 1975, 0,74 million controlled flights produced 210 occurrences of categories A and B. In 2008, only 4 occurrences were recorded for 3,15 million flights. One was considered as category A and three as category B. Among those, one falls under the responsibility of DFS.”

(Translated from ANSP's 2008 annual report)

0

DFS, Germany

Del

ay p

er

arr

ival

flig

ht

Arr

ival

flig

hts

('000

)

De

lay

( '00

0 m

in)

De

lay

per

del

ayed

flig

ht

Arr

ival

flig

hts

('000

)

Del

ay p

er

arr

iva

l flig

ht

En Route ATFM delay

Rhein

0

1

2

3

4

5


60708090

100110120

2006 2007 2008 2009F



in €2008 per hour

138128113

2006 2007 2008

in €2008 per hour

0100200300400500600

2006 2007 2008 2009F

in flights per day

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

De

cJa

nM

ar

Ap

rM

ay

Jun

Jul

Au

gS

ep

Oct

No

vD

ec


Low




per ATCO hour



High


in €2008 per hour

308 275287

2006 2007 2008

1.020.910.87

2006 2007 2008



0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

2006 2007 2008 2009

0

1

2

3



0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2006 2007 2008 2009





Avg


in thousand flights

0500

10001500

2000250030003500

2006 2007 2008 2009

-7%+2%+5%

index 100 in 2006






* Forecast

source: 2008 ANSP's annual report

ACC

Ankara □ 2 0.3% 22 40Istanbul ∆ 1 0.1% 19 8

Airport

Istanbul/At. 7.0 135Antalya 0.8 62Ankara-Esenb. 0.0 27

A - 11

Airport ATFM delay

Day

s w

ith

del

ays>

1m

% fl

ight

s de

laye

d

Safety

Cost effectiveness


In 2008, a total of 123 incident reports have been investigated and 44 of which were classified as ATM related.

(Extract from ANSP's 2008 annual report)

0

DHMI, Turkey

Del

ay p

er

arr

ival

flig

ht

Arr

ival

flig

hts

('000

)

De

lay

( '00

0 m

in)

De

lay

per

del

ayed

flig

ht

Arr

ival

flig

hts

('000

)

Del

ay p

er

arr

iva

l flig

ht

En Route ATFM delay

Ankara

0

1

2

3

4

5


60

80

100

120

140

2006 2007 2008 2009F



in €2008 per hour

222122

2006 2007 2008

in €2008 per hour

0

100

200

300

400

2006 2007 2008 2009F

in flights per day

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

De

cJa

nM

ar

Ap

rM

ay

Jun

Jul

Au

gS

ep

Oct

No

vD

ec


Low




per ATCO hour



High


in €2008 per hour

315246263

2006 2007 2008

0.650.660.67

2006 2007 2008



0

20

40

60

80

100

2006 2007 2008 2009

01234567



0.00.51.01.52.02.53.03.5

2006 2007 2008 2009





Avg


in thousand flights

0

200

400

600

800

1000

2006 2007 2008 2009

+5%+8%+10%

index 100 in 2006






* Forecast

source: ANSP's 2008 annual report

ACC

Paris □ 8 1.2% 17 236Brest ∆ 6 0.4% 21 62Marseille A. ◊ 5 0.3% 20 61Reims ○ 4 0.9% 14 98Bordeaux − 2 0.1% 27 20

Airport

Cannes Mand. 9.4 7 Lyon/Sartola. 0.4 61Paris/Charle. 1.5 262 Nice 0.4 65Paris/Orly 1.3 112 Marseille/Pr. 0.4 51Lille/Lesqui. 1.1 10 Ajaccio 0.4 7Toussus Le N. 0.9 6 Paris/Le Bou. 0.2 27

A - 12

Airport ATFM delay

Day

s w

ith

del

ays>

1m

% fl

ight

s de

laye

d

Safety

Cost effectiveness


The “safety event analysis body” (ITES) is the organisation in charge of centralising the analysis of air navigation safety events that are estimated to be “very important” (a), or “important” (b). In 2008, ITES analysed 45 safety events in 10 sessions, against 42 in 2007.

The causes and contributing factors identified by the analysis are divided as follows:- the individual (48%)- communication between individuals (30%)- organisation, tools and rules (11%)- context and environment (11%).This distribution is identical to that for 2007.


0

DSNA, France

Del

ay p

er

arr

ival

flig

ht

Arr

ival

flig

hts

('000

)

De

lay

( '00

0 m

in)

De

lay

per

del

ayed

flig

ht

Arr

ival

flig

hts

('000

)

Del

ay p

er

arr

iva

l flig

ht

En Route ATFM delay

Paris

0

1

2

3

4

5


60708090

100110120

2006 2007 2008 2009F



in €2008 per hour

868171

2006 2007 2008

in €2008 per hour

0

100

200

300

400

500

2006 2007 2008 2009F

in flights per day

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

De

cJa

nM

ar

Ap

rM

ay

Jun

Jul

Au

gS

ep

Oct

No

vD

ec


Low




per ATCO hour



High


in €2008 per hour

291 296296

2006 2007 2008

0.810.790.75

2006 2007 2008



0

20

40

60

80

100

2006 2007 2008 2009

0

1

2

3



0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2006 2007 2008 2009





Avg


in thousand flights

0500

10001500

2000250030003500

2006 2007 2008 2009

-7%-0%+6%

index 100 in 2006


Total IFR flights controlled ('000) 153 173 156*IFR flight-hours controlled ('000) 54 60 55*IFR airport movements controlled ('000) 35 42 28*


Total Staff 120 122ATCOs in OPS 34 37 n/a


* Forecast


ACC

Tallinn □ 0 0.0% 18 0

Airport

A - 13

Airport ATFM delay

Day

s w

ith

del

ays>

1m

% fl

ight

s de

laye

d

Safety

Cost effectiveness


EANS, Estonia

Del

ay p

er

arr

ival

flig

ht

Arr

ival

flig

hts

('000

)

De

lay

( '00

0 m

in)

De

lay

per

del

ayed

flig

ht

Arr

ival

flig

hts

('000

)

Del

ay p

er

arr

iva

l flig

ht

En Route ATFM delay

Tallinn

0

1

2

3

4

5


60

80

100

120

140

2006 2007 2008 2009F



in €2008 per hour

474450

2006 2007 2008

in €2008 per hour

0

50

100

150

200

2006 2007 2008 2009F

in flights per day

0

100

200

300

400

500

De

cJa

nM

ar

Ap

rM

ay

Jun

Jul

Au

gS

ep

Oct

No

vD

ec


Low




per ATCO hour



High


in €2008 per hour

131 110125

2006 2007 2008

1.151.201.21

2006 2007 2008



0

20

40

60

80

100

2006 2007 2008 2009

0

1

2

3



0.0

0.5

1.0

2006 2007 2008 2009





Avg


in thousand flights

0

50

100

150

200

2006 2007 2008 2009

-10%+13%+12%

index 100 in 2006






* Forecast

source: ENAV

ACC

Padova □ 2 0.1% 20 14Milano ∆ 0 0.0% 20 0Roma ◊ 0 0.0% 38 2Brindisi ○ 0 0.0% 8 0

Airport

Milan/Linate 0.6 60 Bergamo/Orio. 0.1 32Milan/Malpen. 0.4 94 Napoli Capod. 0.1 32Torino/Casel. 0.3 25 Cagliari Elm. 0.1 19Rome/Fiumici. 0.3 162 Firenze/Pere. 0.1 15Venice/Tesse. 0.2 38 Bari Palese 0.0 15

A - 14

Airport ATFM delay

Day

s w

ith

del

ays>

1m

% fl

ight

s de

laye

d

Safety

Cost effectiveness


ENAV S.p.A. successfully managed to maintain its high safety record in 2009.

(Source: ENAV).

0

ENAV, Italy

Del

ay p

er

arr

ival

flig

ht

Arr

ival

flig

hts

('000

)

De

lay

( '00

0 m

in)

De

lay

per

del

ayed

flig

ht

Arr

ival

flig

hts

('000

)

Del

ay p

er

arr

iva

l flig

ht

En Route ATFM delay

Padova

0

1

2

3

4

5


60708090

100110120

2006 2007 2008 2009F



in €2008 per hour

97101100

2006 2007 2008

in €2008 per hour

0

100

200

300

400

500

2006 2007 2008 2009F

in flights per day

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

De

cJa

nM

ar

Ap

rM

ay

Jun

Jul

Au

gS

ep

Oct

No

vD

ec


Low




per ATCO hour



High


in €2008 per hour

338 336328

2006 2007 2008

0.810.840.73

2006 2007 2008



0

20

40

60

80

100

2006 2007 2008 2009

0

1

2

3



0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2006 2007 2008 2009





Avg


in thousand flights

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2006 2007 2008 2009

-6%-3%+8%

index 100 in 2006






* Forecast

ACC

Tampere □ 5 0.2% 25 6Rovaniemi ∆ 0 0.0% 0

Airport

Helsinki-Va. 0.1 86

A - 15

Airport ATFM delay

Day

s w

ith

del

ays>

1m

% fl

ight

s de

laye

d

Safety

Cost effectiveness

Unknown severity classification.

The reporting of various types of discrepancies has been encouraged for years, and the threshold for reporting has consequently become lower and the number of reports has increased for the fifth year in a row. There were 1,627 (1,257) notifications in 2008. The majority of the discrepancies concerned the operations of aircraft or their technical problems, but also to a considerable extent Finavia’s own operations.(…)There were no serious dangerous situations arising from Finavia’s operations, although Finavia’s operations were a contributory factor in four instances where damage occurred.


Finavia, Finland

Del

ay p

er

arr

ival

flig

ht

Arr

ival

flig

hts

('000

)

De

lay

( '00

0 m

in)

De

lay

per

del

ayed

flig

ht

Arr

ival

flig

hts

('000

)

Del

ay p

er

arr

iva

l flig

ht

En Route ATFM delay

Tampere

0

1

2

3

4

5


60

70

80

90

100

110

2006 2007 2008 2009F



in €2008 per hour

647675

2006 2007 2008

in €2008 per hour

0

100

200

300

400

2006 2007 2008 2009F

in flights per day

0100200300400500600700800

De

cJa

nM

ar

Ap

rM

ay

Jun

Jul

Au

gS

ep

Oct

No

vD

ec


Low




per ATCO hour



High


in €2008 per hour

188 192199

2006 2007 2008

0.620.720.69

2006 2007 2008



0

20

40

60

80

100

2006 2007 2008 2009

0

1

2

3



0.0

0.5

1.0

2006 2007 2008 2009





Avg


in thousand flights

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

2006 2007 2008 2009

-8%+7%-0%

index 100 in 2006





ATM/CNS provision costs (million €2008) 203 n/a n/aCapital Investment (million €2008) n/a 15 n/a

* Forecast

Safety

Cost effectiveness


HCAA, Greece

De

lay

( '00

0 m

in)

De

lay

per

del

ayed

flig

ht

En Route ATFM delay

ACC

Athinai+Mac. □ 54 3.9% 30 714

Airport

Kos 6.2 7 Makedonia 0.2 26Diagoras 4.4 17 Mitilini 0.0 5Athens 3.7 102Iraklion/Nik. 1.7 24Ioannis/Kapo. 0.4 8

A - 16

Airport ATFM delay

Day

s w

ith

del

ays>

1m

% fl

ight

s de

laye

d

Del

ay p

er

arr

ival

flig

ht

Arr

ival

flig

hts

('000

)

De

lay

( '00

0 m

in)

De

lay

per

del

ayed

flig

ht

Arr

ival

flig

hts

('000

)

Del

ay p

er

arr

iva

l flig

ht

Athinai+Mac.

0

1

2

3

4

5


60708090

100110120

2006 2007 2008 2009



in €2008 per hour

767576

2006 2007 2008

in €2008 per hour

0

100

200

300

400

500

2006 2007 2008 2009F

in flights per day

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

De

cJa

nM

ar

Ap

rM

ay

Jun

Jul

Au

gS

ep

Oct

No

vD

ec


Low




per ATCO hour



High


in €2008 per hour

287 241

2006 2007 2008

0.760.690.65

2006 2007 2008



0

20

40

60

80

100

2006 2007 2008 2009

01234567



0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

2006 2007 2008 2009





Avg


in thousand flights

0

200

400

600

800

2006 2007 2008 2009

-1%+3%+10%

index 100 in 2006






* Forecast

ACC

Budapest □ 1 0.2% 15 15

Airport

Budapest/Fe. 0.5 54

A - 17

Airport ATFM delay

Day

s w

ith

del

ays>

1m

% fl

ight

s de

laye

d

Safety

Cost effectiveness


The results of safety management system accomplished in 2008 show the following numbers:• In 2008 the number of flights provided by air navigation services flight information service included grew by 1.19% to 658 871, those using only air traffic control service by 0.73% to 619 998.• The number of incidents significant in relation to the activities of HungaroControl Pte. Ltd. Co. in 2008 was lower, 9 incidents, than the maximum acceptable value (12 incidents) included in the Company’s safety improving plans.• The operation or malfunction of technical devices caused no problems in the safe execution of services.


HungaroControl, Hungary

Del

ay p

er

arr

ival

flig

ht

Arr

ival

flig

hts

('000

)

De

lay

( '00

0 m

in)

De

lay

per

del

ayed

flig

ht

Arr

ival

flig

hts

('000

)

Del

ay p

er

arr

iva

l flig

ht

En Route ATFM delay

Budapest

0

1

2

3

4

5


60708090

100110120

2006 2007 2008 2009F



in €2008 per hour

616062

2006 2007 2008

in €2008 per hour

0

100

200

300

400

2006 2007 2008 2009F

in flights per day

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

De

cJa

nM

ar

Ap

rM

ay

Jun

Jul

Au

gS

ep

Oct

No

vD

ec


Low




per ATCO hour



High


in €2008 per hour

248 242233

2006 2007 2008

0.820.840.83

2006 2007 2008



0

20

40

60

80

100

2006 2007 2008 2009

0

1

2

3



0.0

0.5

1.0

2006 2007 2008 2009





Avg


in thousand flights

0

200

400

600

800

2006 2007 2008 2009

-2%+1%+2%

index 100 in 2006






* Forecast

source: IAA - Air Proximity Occurrences

Safety

Cost effectiveness


No information found in Annual Report 0

IAA, Ireland

De

lay

( '00

0 m

in)

De

lay

per

del

ayed

flig

ht

En Route ATFM delay

Day

s w

ith

del

ays>

1m

% fl

ight

s de

laye

d

De

lay

( '00

0 m

in)

De

lay

per

del

ayed

flig

ht

ACC

Shannon □ 0 0.0% 0Dublin ∆ 0 0.0% 10 0

Airport ATFM delay

Day

s w

ith

del

ays>

1m

% fl

ight

s de

laye

d

Del

ay p

er

arr

ival

flig

ht

Arr

ival

flig

hts

('000

)

De

lay

( '00

0 m

in)

De

lay

per

del

ayed

flig

ht

Arr

ival

flig

hts

('000

)

Del

ay p

er

arr

iva

l flig

ht

Airport

Dublin 0.3 87

A - 18

Del

ay p

er

arr

ival

flig

ht

Arr

ival

flig

hts

('000

)

Arr

ival

flig

hts

('000

)

Del

ay p

er

arr

iva

l flig

ht

Dublin

0

1

2

3

4

5


60708090

100110120

2006 2007 2008 2009F



in €2008 per hour

867783

2006 2007 2008

in €2008 per hour

0

100

200

300

400

2006 2007 2008 2009F

in flights per day

0

500

1000

1500

2000

De

cJa

nM

ar

Ap

rM

ay

Jun

Jul

Au

gS

ep

Oct

No

vD

ec


Low




per ATCO hour



High


in €2008 per hour

228 229225

2006 2007 2008

1.000.950.88

2006 2007 2008



0

20

40

60

80

100

2006 2007 2008 2009

0

1

2

3



0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2006 2007 2008 2009





Avg


in thousand flights

0100200300400500600700

2006 2007 2008 2009

-12%+1%+6%

index 100 in 2006






* Forecast

Source: SIKA Luftfart 2008

Safety

Cost effectiveness


“No accidents were caused by the operations of ANS during 2008.”(Extract from LFV 2008 annual report).

"In 2008, there were 20 accidents in Swedish aviation, excluding sports1 activities. This is less than in 2007 when there were 25 accidents. During 2008, there was one death in Swedish aviation which is the same as the previous year. Four people died while participating in aviation sports during 2008.

There have been no accidents in regular and charter traffic during 2008. There have also not been any accidents in commercial aviation with lighter aircraft. The flight safety goal for commercial aviation was a reduction in the number of accidents. However, in commercial aviation with helicopters there was one accident.”(Extract from SIKA Lutfart 2008)

LFV/ANS Sweden, Sweden

De

lay

( '00

0 m

in)

De

lay

per

del

ayed

flig

ht

En Route ATFM delay

Day

s w

ith

del

ays>

1m

% fl

ight

s de

laye

d

De

lay

( '00

0 m

in)

De

lay

per

del

ayed

flig

ht

ACC

Stockholm □ 2 0.1% 19 6Malmo ∆ 2 0.2% 17 13

Airport ATFM delay

Day

s w

ith

del

ays>

1m

% fl

ight

s de

laye

d

Del

ay p

er

arr

ival

flig

ht

Arr

ival

flig

hts

('000

)

De

lay

( '00

0 m

in)

De

lay

per

del

ayed

flig

ht

Arr

ival

flig

hts

('000

)

Del

ay p

er

arr

iva

l flig

ht

Airport

Stockholm/A. 0.1 96Stockholm-Br. 0.1 24Gotenborg/La. 0.1 28Goteborg-Sav. 0.1 5Malmoe/Sturu. 0.0 13

A - 19

Del

ay p

er

arr

ival

flig

ht

Arr

ival

flig

hts

('000

)

Arr

ival

flig

hts

('000

)

Del

ay p

er

arr

iva

l flig

ht

Malmo

0

1

2

3

4

5


60

80

100

120

140

2006 2007 2008 2009F



in €2008 per hour

737464

2006 2007 2008

in €2008 per hour

0

100

200

300

400

2006 2007 2008 2009F

in flights per day

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

De

cJa

nM

ar

Ap

rM

ay

Jun

Jul

Au

gS

ep

Oct

No

vD

ec


Low




per ATCO hour



High


in €2008 per hour

164 174164

2006 2007 2008

0.700.700.68

2006 2007 2008



0

20

40

60

80

100

2006 2007 2008 2009

0

1

2

3



0.0

0.5

1.0

2006 2007 2008 2009





Avg


in thousand flights

0

200

400

600

800

1000

2006 2007 2008 2009

-11%+4%+3%

index 100 in 2006


Total IFR flights controlled ('000) 192 223 n/aIFR flight-hours controlled ('000) 64 66 n/aIFR airport movements controlled ('000) 41 58



ATM/CNS provision costs (million €2008) 21 20 21*Capital Investment (million €2008) 10 12 n/a

* Forecast

source: 2008 gada Lidojumu drošības pārskats (Flight Safety Review)

Safety

Cost effectiveness


"The Civil Aviation Agency's database shows that for Latvian air navigation services the most common problems have occurred in connection with the provision of separation between aircraft (separation provision). Among these events, there were three serious incidents which took place in Riga FIR."

(Translated from the 2008 Flight Safety Review)

In 2008 LGS had 3 separation infringements and 1 ground communication failure. Other occurrences were severity class 5 (no affect on ATM).

(source: LGS)

0

LGS, Latvia

De

lay

( '00

0 m

in)

De

lay

per

del

ayed

flig

ht

En Route ATFM delay

Day

s w

ith

del

ays>

1m

% fl

ight

s de

laye

d

De

lay

( '00

0 m

in)

De

lay

per

del

ayed

flig

ht

ACC

Riga □ 0 0.0% 0

Airport ATFM delay

Day

s w

ith

del

ays>

1m

% fl

ight

s de

laye

d

Del

ay p

er

arr

ival

flig

ht

Arr

ival

flig

hts

('000

)

De

lay

( '00

0 m

in)

De

lay

per

del

ayed

flig

ht

Arr

ival

flig

hts

('000

)

Del

ay p

er

arr

iva

l flig

ht

Airport

A - 20

Del

ay p

er

arr

ival

flig

ht

Arr

ival

flig

hts

('000

)

Arr

ival

flig

hts

('000

)

Del

ay p

er

arr

iva

l flig

ht

Riga

0

1

2

3

4

5


60

80

100

120

140

2006 2007 2008 2009



in €2008 per hour

283129

2006 2007 2008

in €2008 per hour

0

100

200

300

400

2006 2007 2008 2009F

in flights per day

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

De

cJa

nM

ar

Ap

rM

ay

Jun

Jul

Au

gS

ep

Oct

No

vD

ec


Low




per ATCO hour



High


in €2008 per hour

253 210237

2006 2007 2008

0.750.740.76

2006 2007 2008



0

20

40

60

80

100

2006 2007 2008 2009

0

1

2

3



0.0

0.5

1.0

2006 2007 2008 2009





Avg


in thousand flights

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

2006 2007 2008 2009

+16%+15%

index 100 in 2006






* Forecast

ACC

Bratislava □ 2 0.4% 16 19

Airport

A - 21

Airport ATFM delay

Day

s w

ith

del

ays>

1m

% fl

ight

s de

laye

d

Safety

Cost effectiveness

ESSAR 2 severity classification.

In 2008 the department of SAF received 225 reports on occurrences in air traffic. 105 occurences were subject to internal investigation. Occurrences of insignificant operational influence on ATS provision were investigated as well. They were aimed at finding if LPS SR, š. p. played a role in their appearance. The department of SAF carried out investigation of 3 voluntary reports.SAF investigation of occurrences in air traffic was conducted in close collaboration with the Civil Aviation Authority of the Slovak republic. Based on the investigation of occurrences, SAF department issued 222 recommendations to increase the level of safety.

(Source: LPS).

LPS, Slovak Republic

Del

ay p

er

arr

ival

flig

ht

Arr

ival

flig

hts

('000

)

De

lay

( '00

0 m

in)

De

lay

per

del

ayed

flig

ht

Arr

ival

flig

hts

('000

)

Del

ay p

er

arr

iva

l flig

ht

En Route ATFM delay

Bratislava

0

1

2

3

4

5


60708090

100110120

2006 2007 2008 2009F



in €2008 per hour

535455

2006 2007 2008

in €2008 per hour

0100200300400500600

2006 2007 2008 2009F

in flights per day

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

De

cJa

nM

ar

Ap

rM

ay

Jun

Jul

Au

gS

ep

Oct

No

vD

ec


Low




per ATCO hour



High


in €2008 per hour

413 378368

2006 2007 2008

0.570.520.51

2006 2007 2008



0

20

40

60

80

100

2006 2007 2008 2009

0

1

2

3



0.0

0.5

1.0

2006 2007 2008 2009





Avg


in thousand flights

0

100

200

300

400

2006 2007 2008 2009

-2%+6%-2%

index 100 in 2006






* Forecast


ACC

Amsterdam □ 1 0.3% 14 21

Airport

Amsterdam 0.6 201Groningen-Ee. 0.0 10Rotterdam 0.0 11

A - 22

Airport ATFM delay

Day

s w

ith

del

ays>

1m

% fl

ight

s de

laye

d

Safety

Cost effectiveness

In 2008, LVNL registered 3,900 reported incidents with relevance for safety, compared with 3,840 in 2007.The total number of incidents in 2008 was not much larger than that in 2007. Unauthorised crossings of the airspace in the Schiphol air traffic zone remain at a relatively high level. This was also the case in the airspace of the regional airports: Groningen Airport Eelde and Maastricht Aachen Airport.Similarly, the number of runway incursions at Schiphol airport did not differ significantly from that in previous years.In 2008, there were no incidents leading to a serious risk on Schiphol’s runways and taxiways.(Extract from 2008 ANSP's annual report)

In 2008 LVNL made use of an internal severity classification scheme (V1-V4) for incidents, as well as of the ESARR-2 severity classification scheme.

0

LVNL, Netherlands

Del

ay p

er

arr

ival

flig

ht

Arr

ival

flig

hts

('000

)

De

lay

( '00

0 m

in)

De

lay

per

del

ayed

flig

ht

Arr

ival

flig

hts

('000

)

Del

ay p

er

arr

iva

l flig

ht

En Route ATFM delay

Amsterdam

0

1

2

3

4

5


60

80

100

120

140

2006 2007 2008 2009F



in €2008 per hour

11710391

2006 2007 2008

in €2008 per hour

0

200

400

600

800

2006 2007 2008 2009F

in flights per day

0

500

1000

1500

2000

De

cJa

nM

ar

Ap

rM

ay

Jun

Jul

Au

gS

ep

Oct

No

vD

ec


Low




per ATCO hour



High


in €2008 per hour

479 443455

2006 2007 2008

0.880.981.00

2006 2007 2008



0

20

40

60

80

100

2006 2007 2008 2009

0

1

2

3



0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

2006 2007 2008 2009





Avg


in thousand flights

0100200300

400500600700

2006 2007 2008 2009

-8%-3%+4%

index 100 in 2006






* Forecast

ACC

Malta □ 2 0.1% 28 1

Airport

A - 23

Airport ATFM delay

Day

s w

ith

del

ays>

1m

% fl

ight

s de

laye

d

Safety

Cost effectiveness


RWY Incursions 4 occurrences*** RWY Excursions 2 occurrences** Loss of Separation 1 occurrence Bird Strikes 4 occurrences Loss of Communications G to A 6 occurrences* Loss of Surveillance 7 occurrences*

* These were all related to the East sector.** These were related to GA aircraft*** These were mainly vehicles RWY incursions

In total, MATS had more than 200 Occurrences reported by Operations and another 110 reported by the Technical section.

(source: MATS)

MATS, Malta

Del

ay p

er

arr

ival

flig

ht

Arr

ival

flig

hts

('000

)

De

lay

( '00

0 m

in)

De

lay

per

del

ayed

flig

ht

Arr

ival

flig

hts

('000

)

Del

ay p

er

arr

iva

l flig

ht

En Route ATFM delay

Malta

0

1

2

3

4

5


60

80

100

120

140

2006 2007 2008 2009F



in €2008 per hour

2228

19

2006 2007 2008

in €2008 per hour

0

100

200

300

400

2006 2007 2008 2009F

in flights per day

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

De

cJa

nM

ar

Ap

rM

ay

Jun

Jul

Au

gS

ep

Oct

No

vD

ec


Low




per ATCO hour



High


in €2008 per hour

270215257

2006 2007 2008

0.490.540.43

2006 2007 2008



0

20

40

60

80

100

2006 2007 2008 2009

0

1

2

3



0.0

0.5

1.0

2006 2007 2008 2009





Avg


in thousand flights

0

20

40

60

80

100

2006 2007 2008 2009

+1%+4%+8%

index 100 in 2006





ATM/CNS provision costs (million €2008) 11 12 11*Capital Investment (million €2008) 0.3 0.3 0.1*

* Forecast

Safety

Cost effectiveness


MK CAA, FYROM

De

lay

( '00

0 m

in)

De

lay

per

del

ayed

flig

ht

En Route ATFM delay

Day

s w

ith

del

ays>

1m

% fl

ight

s de

laye

d

De

lay

( '00

0 m

in)

De

lay

per

del

ayed

flig

ht

ACC

Skopje □ 0 0.0% 0

Airport ATFM delay

Day

s w

ith

del

ays>

1m

% fl

ight

s de

laye

d

Del

ay p

er

arr

ival

flig

ht

Arr

ival

flig

hts

('000

)

De

lay

( '00

0 m

in)

De

lay

per

del

ayed

flig

ht

Arr

ival

flig

hts

('000

)

Del

ay p

er

arr

iva

l flig

ht

Airport

A - 24

Del

ay p

er

arr

ival

flig

ht

Arr

ival

flig

hts

('000

)

Arr

ival

flig

hts

('000

)

Del

ay p

er

arr

iva

l flig

ht

Skopje

0

1

2

3

4

5


60

70

80

90

100

110

2006 2007 2008 2009F



in €2008 per hour

242321

2006 2007 2008

in €2008 per hour

0

100

200

300

400

500

2006 2007 2008 2009F

in flights per day

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

De

cJa

nM

ar

Ap

rM

ay

Jun

Jul

Au

gS

ep

Oct

No

vD

ec


Low




per ATCO hour



High


in €2008 per hour

392 388373

2006 2007 2008

0.270.310.30

2006 2007 2008



0

20

40

60

80

100

2006 2007 2008 2009

0

1

2

3



0.0

0.5

1.0

2006 2007 2008 2009





Avg


in thousand flights

0

50

100

150

2006 2007 2008 2009

-0%+2%+4%

index 100 in 2006





ATM/CNS provision costs (million €2008) 5 5 6*Capital Investment (million €2008) 1 10 n/a

* Forecast

source: MoldATSA

MoldATSA, Moldova

De

lay

( '00

0 m

in)

De

lay

per

del

ayed

flig

ht

En Route ATFM delay

Safety

Cost effectiveness


During 2008 Safety & Quality Management Service/MoldATSA recorded a number of mandatory and voluntary reports of occurrences in the frame of the Confidential and Mandatory Safety Occurrences Reporting System and the part of them were significant with relevance for safety. A number of internal audits have been conducted and respective corrective measures have been taken in order to mitigate the risk and reduce impact to safety.The more serious of above mentioned occurrences was the accident with an aircraft that also caused the DVOR/DME Navigation Aid destruction.Others of them were relevant to communications, navigation and meteo aids disfunction classified as less serious.There was a trend of reports increasing in comparison with last years as a consequence of a well built safety culture and also awareness of the importance of Safety Occurrences Reporting by personnel. (source: MoldATSA)

De

lay

( '00

0 m

in)

De

lay

per

del

ayed

flig

ht

Day

s w

ith

del

ays>

1m

% fl

ight

s de

laye

d

ACC

Chisinau □ 0 0.0% 0

Del

ay p

er

arr

ival

flig

ht

Arr

ival

flig

hts

('000

)

De

lay

( '00

0 m

in)

De

lay

per

del

ayed

flig

ht

Arr

ival

flig

hts

('000

)

Del

ay p

er

arr

iva

l flig

ht

Airport ATFM delay

Day

s w

ith

del

ays>

1m

% fl

ight

s de

laye

d

Airport

A - 25

Del

ay p

er

arr

ival

flig

ht

Arr

ival

flig

hts

('000

)

Arr

ival

flig

hts

('000

)

Del

ay p

er

arr

iva

l flig

ht

Chisinau

0

1

2

3

4

5


60

80

100

120

140

160

2006 2007 2008 2009F



in €2008 per hour

8.76.36.5

2006 2007 2008

in €2008 per hour

0

100

200

300

400

500

2006 2007 2008 2009F

in flights per day

0

50

100

150

200

De

cJa

nM

ar

Ap

rM

ay

Jun

Jul

Au

gS

ep

Oct

No

vD

ec


Low




per ATCO hour



High


in €2008 per hour

386 344411

2006 2007 2008

0.170.140.14

2006 2007 2008



0

20

40

60

80

100

2006 2007 2008 2009

0

1

2

3



0.0

0.5

1.0

2006 2007 2008 2009





Avg


in thousand flights

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

2006 2007 2008 2009

+7%+18%+25%

index 100 in 2006


Total IFR flights controlled ('000) 1610 1608 1485IFR flight-hours controlled ('000) 575 581 532IFR airport movements controlled ('000)




* Forecast

source : ANSP's 2008 annual report

ACC

Maastricht □ 5 0.3% 18 74

Airport

A - 26

Airport ATFM delay

Day

s w

ith

del

ays>

1m

% fl

ight

s de

laye

d

Safety

Cost effectiveness


In 2008 flights in our airspace were handled with the highest standards of safety. Safety statistics however suffered a slight setback compared to the favourable trend of the previous year. For the first time in five years, we experienced a serious risk bearing incident (Category A). The number of major incidents (Category B) remained at the same level as 2007, with a total of three. Whilst we are clearly dealing with a very small number of risk bearing incidents, all steps will be taken during 2009 and beyond to bring about improvements so that all aircraft can benefit from the highest levels of safety as they travel through the airspace.


0

MUAC

Del

ay p

er

arr

ival

flig

ht

Arr

ival

flig

hts

('000

)

De

lay

( '00

0 m

in)

De

lay

per

del

ayed

flig

ht

Arr

ival

flig

hts

('000

)

Del

ay p

er

arr

iva

l flig

ht

En Route ATFM delay

Maastricht

0

1

2

3

4

5


60

70

80

90

100

110

2006 2007 2008 2009F



in €2008 per hour

135135131

2006 2007 2008

in €2008 per hour

050

100150200250300

2006 2007 2008 2009F

in flights per day

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

De

cJa

nM

ar

Ap

rM

ay

Jun

Jul

Au

gS

ep

Oct

No

vD

ec


Low




per ATCO hour



High


in €2008 per hour

149 149142

2006 2007 2008

1.861.861.79

2006 2007 2008



0

20

40

60

80

100

2006 2007 2008 2009

0

1

2

3



0.0

0.5

1.0

2006 2007 2008 2009





Avg


in thousand flights

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2006 2007 2008 2009

-8%-0%+5%

index 100 in 2006






* Forecast

ACC

Tirana □ 14 0.7% 17 19

Airport

A - 27

Airport ATFM delay

Day

s w

ith

del

ays>

1m

% fl

ight

s de

laye

d

Safety

Cost effectiveness


NATA Albania, Albania

Del

ay p

er

arr

ival

flig

ht

Arr

ival

flig

hts

('000

)

De

lay

( '00

0 m

in)

De

lay

per

del

ayed

flig

ht

Arr

ival

flig

hts

('000

)

Del

ay p

er

arr

iva

l flig

ht

En Route ATFM delay

Tirana

0

1

2

3

4

5


60

80

100

120

140

2006 2007 2008 2009F



in €2008 per hour

914

10

2006 2007 2008

in €2008 per hour

0

100

200

300

400

500

2006 2007 2008 2009F

in flights per day

0100200300400500600700800

De

cJa

nM

ar

Ap

rM

ay

Jun

Jul

Au

gS

ep

Oct

No

vD

ec


Low




per ATCO hour



High


in €2008 per hour

394 371358

2006 2007 2008

0.540.450.40

2006 2007 2008



0

20

40

60

80

100

2006 2007 2008 2009

0

1

2

3



0.0

0.5

1.0

2006 2007 2008 2009





Avg


in thousand flights

0

50

100

150

200

2006 2007 2008 2009

+9%+4%+19%

index 100 in 2006





ATM/CNS provision costs (million €2008) 741 726 n/aCapital Investment (million €2008) 169 168 174*

* Forecast

source: NATS

Safety

Cost effectiveness

ESARR 2 compliant severity classification.

We continue to maintain safety standards and to enhance those standards wherever possible. We remain committed to the principle of anticipating and preventing safety incidents before they can happen, and avoiding risk bearing airproxes. To this end we have developed a new safety risk index and our strategic plan for safety places emphasis on reducing this risk index particularly in the London terminal control operation.


0

NATS, United Kingdom

De

lay

( '00

0 m

in)

De

lay

per

del

ayed

flig

ht

En Route ATFM delay

Day

s w

ith

del

ays>

1m

% fl

ight

s de

laye

d

De

lay

( '00

0 m

in)

De

lay

per

del

ayed

flig

ht

ACC

London AC □ 8 1.0% 19 328London TC ∆ 8 0.4% 28 137Manchester ◊ 1 0.2% 13 15Scottish ○ 1 0.1% 14 12

Airport

London/City 1.9 38 Southampton 0.3 22London/Heath. 1.7 233 London/Stans. 0.3 83London/Gatwi. 0.5 126 Bristol/Luls. 0.1 30London/Luton 0.4 49 Edinburgh 0.1 57Manchester 0.3 86 Birmingham 0.1 50

A - 28

Airport ATFM delay

Day

s w

ith

del

ays>

1m

% fl

ight

s de

laye

d

Del

ay p

er

arr

ival

flig

ht

Arr

ival

flig

hts

('000

)

De

lay

( '00

0 m

in)

De

lay

per

del

ayed

flig

ht

Arr

ival

flig

hts

('000

)

Del

ay p

er

arr

iva

l flig

ht

London AC

0

1

2

3

4

5


60708090

100110120

2006 2007 2008 2009F



in €2008 per hour

968385

2006 2007 2008

in €2008 per hour

0

100

200

300

400

500

2006 2007 2008 2009F

in flights per day

010002000300040005000600070008000

De

cJa

nM

ar

Ap

rM

ay

Jun

Jul

Au

gS

ep

Oct

No

vD

ec


Low




per ATCO hour



High


in €2008 per hour

268 281288

2006 2007 2008

1.140.960.96

2006 2007 2008



0

20

40

60

80

100

2006 2007 2008 2009

0

1

2

3



0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2006 2007 2008 2009





Avg


in thousand flights

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

2006 2007 2008 2009

-10%-2%+3%

index 100 in 2006






* Forecast

ACC

Lisboa □ 1 0.2% 13 8

Airport

Porto 0.6 27Lisbon 0.3 68

A - 29

Airport ATFM delay

Day

s w

ith

del

ays>

1m

% fl

ight

s de

laye

d

Safety

Cost effectiveness


During the year of 2008, safety related leaflets/briefing notes and safety reports have been published and well disseminated across relevant parts of the company.In addition to the ATM safety investigation reports, we undertook 10 safety surveys resulting in 13 safety recommendations, 19 suggestions for improvements, 19 safety evaluations, insuring a safety component in all new projects or in any amendments of the existing ones.Statistically, despite the increase in air traffic recorded, NAV Portugal global number of ATM incidents has remained stable, at a low level.

(source : NAV Portugal)

NAV Portugal (FIR Lisboa), Portugal

Del

ay p

er

arr

ival

flig

ht

Arr

ival

flig

hts

('000

)

De

lay

( '00

0 m

in)

De

lay

per

del

ayed

flig

ht

Arr

ival

flig

hts

('000

)

Del

ay p

er

arr

iva

l flig

ht

En Route ATFM delay

Lisboa

0

1

2

3

4

5


60708090

100110120

2006 2007 2008 2009F



in €2008 per hour

126107112

2006 2007 2008

in €2008 per hour

0

100

200

300

400

500

2006 2007 2008 2009F

in flights per day

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

De

cJa

nM

ar

Ap

rM

ay

Jun

Jul

Au

gS

ep

Oct

No

vD

ec


Low




per ATCO hour



High


in €2008 per hour

292 296298

2006 2007 2008

0.960.950.85

2006 2007 2008



0

20

40

60

80

100

2006 2007 2008 2009

0

1

2

3



0.0

0.5

1.0

2006 2007 2008 2009





Avg


in thousand flights

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

2006 2007 2008 2009

-7%+3%+6%

index 100 in 2006






* Forecast

ACC

Kobenhavn □ 0 0.2% 14 13

Airport

Copenhagen/. 0.3 118Billund 0.0 19

A - 30

Airport ATFM delay

Day

s w

ith

del

ays>

1m

% fl

ight

s de

laye

d

Safety

Cost effectiveness

ESSAR 2 severity classification.

Number of incidents (Antal hændelser) per. 100.000 operations is the total number of incidents in category A, B and C attributable to Naviair.

Status for 2008: The requirement was less than 2.5 per 100.000 Operations The result was 1.8 per 100.000 operations. Requirement achieved.

Tilgængelighed ODS = Availability ODSTilgængelighed radardækning = Availability Radar CoverageTilgængelighed radio/nødradiosystemer = Availability of Radio/Emergency Radio

(source: NAVIAIR)

NAVIAIR, Denmark

Del

ay p

er

arr

ival

flig

ht

Arr

ival

flig

hts

('000

)

De

lay

( '00

0 m

in)

De

lay

per

del

ayed

flig

ht

Arr

ival

flig

hts

('000

)

Del

ay p

er

arr

iva

l flig

ht

En Route ATFM delay

Kobenhavn

0

1

2

3

4

5


60

80

100

120

140

2006 2007 2008 2009F



in €2008 per hour

777568

2006 2007 2008

in €2008 per hour

0

100

200

300

400

500

2006 2007 2008 2009F

in flights per day

0

500

1000

1500

2000

De

cJa

nM

ar

Ap

rM

ay

Jun

Jul

Au

gS

ep

Oct

No

vD

ec


Low




per ATCO hour



High


in €2008 per hour

217 258231

2006 2007 2008

0.950.820.86

2006 2007 2008



0

50

100

150

200

250

300

2006 2007 2008 2009

0

1

2

3



0.0

0.5

1.0

2006 2007 2008 2009





Avg


in thousand flights

0

200

400

600

800

2006 2007 2008 2009

-9%-1%+4%

index 100 in 2006



Total IFR flights controlled ('000) 157 178 156*IFR flight-hours controlled ('000) 42 50 44*IFR airport movements controlled ('000) 42 46 31*




* Forecast

Safety

Cost effectiveness


- 1 incident related to aircraft deviation from applicable published ATM procedures (severity clas B). Indirect ATM contribution to that incident was identified. - 1 incident related to separation minima infringement (ACAS) (severity class C) was caused due to direct ATM contribution.

(source: Oro Navigacija)

Oro Navigacija, Lithuania

De

lay

( '00

0 m

in)

De

lay

per

del

ayed

flig

ht

En Route ATFM delay

Day

s w

ith

del

ays>

1m

% fl

ight

s de

laye

d

De

lay

( '00

0 m

in)

De

lay

per

del

ayed

flig

ht

ACC

Vilnius □ 0 0.0% 0

Airport ATFM delay

Day

s w

ith

del

ays>

1m

% fl

ight

s de

laye

d

Del

ay p

er

arr

ival

flig

ht

Arr

ival

flig

hts

('000

)

De

lay

( '00

0 m

in)

De

lay

per

del

ayed

flig

ht

Arr

ival

flig

hts

('000

)

Del

ay p

er

arr

iva

l flig

ht

Airport

A - 31

Del

ay p

er

arr

ival

flig

ht

Arr

ival

flig

hts

('000

)

Arr

ival

flig

hts

('000

)

Del

ay p

er

arr

iva

l flig

ht

Vilnius

0

1

2

3

4

5


60

80

100

120

140

2006 2007 2008 2009F



in €2008 per hour

312321

2006 2007 2008

in €2008 per hour

0

100

200

300

400

500

2006 2007 2008 2009F

in flights per day

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

De

cJa

nM

ar

Ap

rM

ay

Jun

Jul

Au

gS

ep

Oct

No

vD

ec


Low




per ATCO hour



High


in €2008 per hour

381252316

2006 2007 2008

0.570.480.41

2006 2007 2008



0

20

40

60

80

100

2006 2007 2008 2009

0

1

2

3



0.0

0.5

1.0

2006 2007 2008 2009





Avg


in thousand flights

0

50

100

150

200

250

2006 2007 2008 2009

-13%+14%+17%

index 100 in 2006






* Forecast

ACC

Warszawa □ 225 10.0% 17 900

Airport

Warsaw/Okec. 0.4 67Katowice/Pyr. 0.1 13Krakow/Balic. 0.0 17

A - 32

Airport ATFM delay

Day

s w

ith

del

ays>

1m

% fl

ight

s de

laye

d

Safety

Cost effectiveness


In 2008 PANSA managed to deliver on the assumed safety-related goals. Sustaining of the preceding year safety level and, where possible, enhancing the safety levels against a backdrop of noticeable increase in traffic volumes and, consequently, preventing accidents in the air and reducing the volume of serious incidents with a direct or indirect ATM system contribution was PANSA’s crucial objective. When compared to the year before, 2008 saw no air accident with a direct or indirect ATM system contribution and the rate of serious air incidents per 100 000 aircraft movements was almost twice lower totalling 0.502 in 2008 (cf.: 0.919 in 2007).


In 2009 PANSA has reached the strategic safety objective – to improve safety levels by ensuring that number of ATM induced accidents and serious incidents do not increase and where possible, decrease, irrespective of air traffic rise. There were no accidents with a direct or indirect ATM contribution. In 2009 the safety indicator has been calculated as the total ATM related incidents category A and B per 100.000 movements per year was 0,461. In comparison with 2008 (0.545), the result show positive direction and decrease of the value about 18 %.

(source: PANSA)

PANSA, Poland

Del

ay p

er

arr

ival

flig

ht

Arr

ival

flig

hts

('000

)

De

lay

( '00

0 m

in)

De

lay

per

del

ayed

flig

ht

Arr

ival

flig

hts

('000

)

Del

ay p

er

arr

iva

l flig

ht

En Route ATFM delay

Warszawa

0

1

2

3

4

5


60

110

160

210

2006 2007 2008 2009F



in €2008 per hour

866864

2006 2007 2008

in €2008 per hour

0100200300400500600

2006 2007 2008 2009F

in flights per day

0

500

1000

1500

2000

De

cJa

nM

ar

Ap

rM

ay

Jun

Jul

Au

gS

ep

Oct

No

vD

ec


Low




per ATCO hour



High


in €2008 per hour

207 255204

2006 2007 2008

0.930.860.82

2006 2007 2008



0

50

100

150

200

250

300

2006 2007 2008 2009

0

1

2

3



0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2006 2007 2008 2009





Avg


in thousand flights

0100200300

400500600700

2006 2007 2008 2009

-7%+10%+13%

index 100 in 2006






* Forecast

ROMATSA, Romania

De

lay

( '00

0 m

in)

De

lay

per

del

ayed

flig

ht

En Route ATFM delay

Safety

Cost effectiveness


The safety goal of Romatsa for 2008 was achieved.


De

lay

( '00

0 m

in)

De

lay

per

del

ayed

flig

ht

Day

s w

ith

del

ays>

1m

% fl

ight

s de

laye

d

ACC

Bucuresti □ 0 0.0% 0

Del

ay p

er

arr

ival

flig

ht

Arr

ival

flig

hts

('000

)

De

lay

( '00

0 m

in)

De

lay

per

del

ayed

flig

ht

Arr

ival

flig

hts

('000

)

Del

ay p

er

arr

iva

l flig

ht

Airport ATFM delay

Day

s w

ith

del

ays>

1m

% fl

ight

s de

laye

d

Airport

A - 33

Del

ay p

er

arr

ival

flig

ht

Arr

ival

flig

hts

('000

)

Arr

ival

flig

hts

('000

)

Del

ay p

er

arr

iva

l flig

ht

Bucuresti

0

1

2

3

4

5


60

70

80

90

100

110

2006 2007 2008 2009F



in €2008 per hour

595045

2006 2007 2008

in €2008 per hour

0100200300400500600

2006 2007 2008 2009F

in flights per day

0

500

1000

1500

2000

De

cJa

nM

ar

Ap

rM

ay

Jun

Jul

Au

gS

ep

Oct

No

vD

ec


Low




per ATCO hour



High


in €2008 per hour

421 375300

2006 2007 2008

0.430.370.36

2006 2007 2008



0

20

40

60

80

100

2006 2007 2008 2009

0

1

2

3



0.0

0.5

1.0

2006 2007 2008 2009





Avg


in thousand flights

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

2006 2007 2008 2009

-2%+3%+4%

index 100 in 2006

source:ROMATSA






* Forecast

source : Skyguide

ACC

Zurich □ 83 3.9% 15 445Geneva ∆ 18 1.6% 15 146

Airport

Geneva 1.4 81Zurich 1.1 125

A - 34

Skyguide, Switzerland

Del

ay p

er

arr

ival

flig

ht

Arr

ival

flig

hts

('000

)

De

lay

( '00

0 m

in)

De

lay

per

del

ayed

flig

ht

Arr

ival

flig

hts

('000

)

Del

ay p

er

arr

iva

l flig

ht

En Route ATFM delay

Safety

Cost effectiveness


All serious air traffic incidents are investigated by the Swiss Federal Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (BFU). In 2008 the BFU analysed four incidents in which air traffic management may have been a factor. Since such investigations can take several months (or even years), no findings on the degree of risk posed by these incidents or ATM’s involvement therein were available at the time of going to press. The BFU publishes the final reports on all the investigations it has concluded on its own website.

(Extract from the ANSP's 2008 annual report).

0

Airport ATFM delay

Day

s w

ith

del

ays>

1m

% fl

ight

s de

laye

dZurich

0

1

2

3

4

5


60708090

100110120

2006 2007 2008 2009F



in €2008 per hour

112114112

2006 2007 2008

in €2008 per hour

0

100

200

300

400

500

2006 2007 2008 2009F

in flights per day

0500

1000150020002500300035004000

De

cJa

nM

ar

Ap

rM

ay

Jun

Jul

Au

gS

ep

Oct

No

vD

ec


Low




per ATCO hour



High


in €2008 per hour

349 344366

2006 2007 2008

1.141.171.12

2006 2007 2008



0

50

100

150

200

2006 2007 2008 2009

0

1

2

3



0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

2006 2007 2008 2009





Avg


in thousand flights

0

500

1000

1500

2006 2007 2008 2009

-7%+0%+6%

index 100 in 2006






* Forecast

ACC

Ljubjana □ 4 0.2% 16 5

Airport

Ljubljana 0.0 19

A - 35

Airport ATFM delay

Day

s w

ith

del

ays>

1m

% fl

ight

s de

laye

d

Safety

Cost effectiveness


Slovenia Control Safety Management System meets all requirements of Commission Regulation (EC) No. 2096/2005 regarding Single European Sky and national regulations as confirmed by reviews by supervisory authorities of the Civil Aviation Directorate. In addition, during an external assessment by Eurocontrol the company's SMS exceeds the target level of maturity for air navigation service providers in ECAC states. (...) Slovenia Control recorded a number of 85 safety ocurrence reports in 2005, 115 in 2006, 220 in 2007 and 241 in 2008. This clearly indicates an increasing reporting culture within Slovenia Control. In 2008 no type AA or type A safety occurrence was reported within the framework of companie's Safety Management System, while there was one type B safety occurrence, which was not the result of any direct contributory action by Slovenia Control employees. Five safety cases of various size and complexity were processed or commenced in 2008. (...)

Slovenia Control marked an important step for safety in december 2008 taken the decision to join Safety Culture Survey program for ANSP's led by Eurocontrol agency.

(source: Annual report 2008 and Slovenia Control SMS data)

Slovenia Control, Slovenia

Del

ay p

er

arr

ival

flig

ht

Arr

ival

flig

hts

('000

)

De

lay

( '00

0 m

in)

De

lay

per

del

ayed

flig

ht

Arr

ival

flig

hts

('000

)

Del

ay p

er

arr

iva

l flig

ht

En Route ATFM delay

Ljubjana

0

1

2

3

4

5


60

80

100

120

140

160

2006 2007 2008 2009F



in €2008 per hour

716764

2006 2007 2008

in €2008 per hour

0100200300400500600

2006 2007 2008 2009F

in flights per day

0

200

400

600

800

1000

De

cJa

nM

ar

Ap

rM

ay

Jun

Jul

Au

gS

ep

Oct

No

vD

ec


Low




per ATCO hour



High


in €2008 per hour

243 290265

2006 2007 2008

0.460.450.46

2006 2007 2008



0

20

40

60

80

100

2006 2007 2008 2009

0

1

2

3



0.0

0.5

1.0

2006 2007 2008 2009





Avg


in thousand flights

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

2006 2007 2008 2009

-6%+8%+16%

index 100 in 2006






* Forecast

source: SMATSA

ACC

Beograd □ 0 0.0% 26 2

Airport

A - 36

Airport ATFM delay

Day

s w

ith

del

ays>

1m

% fl

ight

s de

laye

d

Safety

Cost effectiveness


SMATSA Safety department is responsible for collecting, analysing, sharing and archiving all safety occurrence data. No accident was induced by ATM.

(source: SMATSA)

SMATSA, Serbia and Montenegro

Del

ay p

er

arr

ival

flig

ht

Arr

ival

flig

hts

('000

)

De

lay

( '00

0 m

in)

De

lay

per

del

ayed

flig

ht

Arr

ival

flig

hts

('000

)

Del

ay p

er

arr

iva

l flig

ht

En Route ATFM delay

Beograd

0

1

2

3

4

5


60

80

100

120

140

2006 2007 2008 2009F



in €2008 per hour

465143

2006 2007 2008

in €2008 per hour

0

100

200

300

400

2006 2007 2008 2009F

in flights per day

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

De

cJa

nM

ar

Ap

rM

ay

Jun

Jul

Au

gS

ep

Oct

No

vD

ec


Low




per ATCO hour



High


in €2008 per hour

286 255288

2006 2007 2008

0.760.690.61

2006 2007 2008



0

20

40

60

80

100

2006 2007 2008 2009

0

1

2

3



0.0

0.5

1.0

2006 2007 2008 2009





Avg


in thousand flights

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

2006 2007 2008 2009

+4%+8%+16%

index 100 in 2006






* Forecast

Source: SAA of Ukraine

ACC

Kyiv □ 2 0.0% 41 4Donets'k ∆ 0 0.0% 0L'viv ◊ 0 0.0% 0Kharkiv ○ 0 0.0% 0Simferopol − 0 0.0% 0Dnipropetro. x 0 0.0% 0Odesa * 0 0% 0

Airport

Kiev - Bori. 0.2 44

A - 37

Airport ATFM delay

Day

s w

ith

del

ays>

1m

% fl

ight

s de

laye

d

Safety

Cost effectiveness


In accordance with national safety related framework regulation, UkSATSE certified by the Ukrainian CAA in accordance with national requirements which are compatible with EC Regulation 2096/2005 of 20/12/2005. The safety regulatory audits of the CAA cover all activities of the UkSATSE with the frequency required by ESARR 1 and EC Regulation 1315/2007 of 07/11/2007. Since 2007, UkSATSE has implemented:- data collection mechanisms and requirements for severity classification scheme of ESARR 2;- safety management system in accordance with ESARR 3;- ESARR 4 requirements for risk assessment and mitigation in ATM;- requirements for ATM services’ personnel in conformity with ESARR5;- key requirements of ESARR 6 for software in ATM."(Source: SAA of Ukraine)

At the state level the SAA of Ukraine in 2008 had used ICAO classification of occurrences (in accordance with national rules of accident and incident investigation).

UkSATSE, Ukraine

Del

ay p

er

arr

ival

flig

ht

Arr

ival

flig

hts

('000

)

De

lay

( '00

0 m

in)

De

lay

per

del

ayed

flig

ht

Arr

ival

flig

hts

('000

)

Del

ay p

er

arr

iva

l flig

ht

En Route ATFM delay

Kyiv

0

1

2

3

4

5


60

80

100

120

140

2006 2007 2008 2009F



in €2008 per hour

141212

2006 2007 2008

in €2008 per hour

0100200300400500600

2006 2007 2008 2009F

in flights per day

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

De

cJa

nM

ar

Ap

rM

ay

Jun

Jul

Au

gS

ep

Oct

No

vD

ec


Low




per ATCO hour



High


in €2008 per hour

426 353391

2006 2007 2008

0.350.280.22

2006 2007 2008



0

20

40

60

80

100

2006 2007 2008 2009

0

1

2

3



0.0

0.5

1.0

2006 2007 2008 2009





Avg


in thousand flights

0

100

200

300

400

500

2006 2007 2008 2009

-7%+9%+8%

index 100 in 2006

133

ANNEX XI - GLOSSARY

ACARE Advisory Council for Aeronautics Research in Europe

ACC Area Control Centre. That part of ATC that is concerned with en-route traffic coming from or going to adjacent centres or APP. It is a unit established to provide air traffic control service to controlled flights in control areas under its jurisdiction.

Accident

(ICAO Annex 13)

An occurrence associated with the operation of an aircraft which takes place between the time any person boards the aircraft with the intention of flight until such time as all such persons have disembarked, in which:

a) a person is fatally or seriously injured as a result of:

Being in the aircraft, or

Direct contact with any part of the aircraft, including parts which have become detached from the aircraft, or

Direct exposure to jet blast,

except when the injuries are from natural causes, self-inflicted or inflicted by other persons, or when the injuries are to stowaways hiding outside the areas normally available to the passengers and crew; or

b) the aircraft sustains damage or structural failure which:

Adversely affects the structural strength, performance or flight characteristics of the aircraft, and

Would normally require major repair or replacement of the affected component, except for engine failure or damage, when the damage is limited to the engine, its cowlings or accessories, or for damage limited to propellers, wing tips, antennas, tyres, brakes, fairings, small dents or puncture holes in the aircraft skin;

c) the aircraft is missing or completely inaccessible.

ACE Reports Air Traffic Management Cost-Effectiveness (ACE) Benchmarking Reports

ACI Airports Council International (http://www.aci-europe.org/)

AEA Association of European Airlines (http://www.aea.be)

Aena Aeropuertos Españoles y Navegación Aérea, ANS Provider - Spain

AGA Aerodromes Air Routes and Ground Aids

Agency The EUROCONTROL Agency

AIG Accident and Incident Investigation (ICAO)

Airside The aircraft movement area (stands, apron, taxiway system, runways etc.) to which access is controlled.

AIS Aeronautical Information Service

AMC Airspace Management Cell

ANS Air Navigation Service. A generic term describing the totality of services provided in order to ensure the safety, regularity and efficiency of air navigation and the appropriate functioning of the air navigation system.

ANS CR Air Navigation Services of the Czech Republic. ANS Provider - Czech Republic.

ANS Sweden The LFV Group – that is the ANS Provider in Sweden.

ANSB Air Navigation Services Board

ANSP Air Navigation Services Provider

APP Approach Control Unit

ASK Available seat-kilometres (ASK): Total number of seats available for the transportation of paying passengers multiplied by the number of kilometres flown

134

ASM Airspace Management

ASMA Arrival Sequencing and Metering Area

AST Annual Summary Templates

ATC Air Traffic Control. A service operated by the appropriate authority to promote the safe, orderly and expeditious flow of air traffic.

ATCO Air Traffic Control Officer

ATFCM Air Traffic Flow and Capacity Management.

ATFM Air Traffic Flow Management. ATFM is established to support ATC in ensuring an optimum flow of traffic to, from, through or within defined areas during times when demand exceeds, or is expected to exceed, the available capacity of the ATC system, including relevant aerodromes.

ATFM delay

(CFMU)

The duration between the last Take-Off time requested by the aircraft operator and the Take-Off slot given by the CFMU.

ATFM Regulation When traffic demand is anticipated to exceed the declared capacity in en-route control centres or at the departure/arrival airport, ATC units may call for “ATFM regulations”.

ATK Available tonne kilometres (ATK) is a unit to measure the capacity of an airline. One ATK is equivalent to the capacity to transport one tonne of freight over one kilometre.

ATM Air Traffic Management. A system consisting of a ground part and an air part, both of which are needed to ensure the safe and efficient movement of aircraft during all phases of operation. The airborne part of ATM consists of the functional capability which interacts with the ground part to attain the general objectives of ATM. The ground part of ATM comprises the functions of Air Traffic Services (ATS), Airspace Management (ASM) and Air Traffic Flow Management (ATFM). Air traffic services are the primary components of ATM.

ATMAP ATM Performance at Airports

ATS Air Traffic Service. A generic term meaning variously, flight information service, alerting service, air traffic advisory service, air traffic control service.

ATSA Bulgaria Air Traffic Services Authority of Bulgaria. ANS Provider - Bulgaria.

Austro Control Austro Control: Österreichische Gesellschaft für Zivilluftfahrt mbH,

ANS Provider - Austria

AVINOR Avinor, ANS Provider - Norway

Bad weather For the purpose of this report, “bad weather” is defined as any weather condition (e.g. strong wind, low visibility, snow) which causes a significant drop in the available airport capacity.

Belgocontrol ANS Provider - Belgium

CAA Civil Aviation Authority

CAEP ICAO Committee for Aviation Environmental Protection

CANSO Civil Air Navigation Services Organisation (http://www.canso.org)

CAP Corrective Action Plan

CDA Continuous Descent Approach

CDM Collaborative Decision Making

CDR Conditional Routes

CE Critical Elements (of a State’s safety oversight system)

CEANS ICAO Conference on the Economics of Airports and Air Navigation Services

CEATS Central European Air Traffic System. The CEATS Programme is created to meet the needs of eight States - Austria, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Hungry, Italy, the Slovak Republic and Slovenia – to co-operate in the provision of air traffic services within their airspace.

CFMU EUROCONTROL Central Flow Management Unit

135

CFMU Area EUROCONTROL Member States in 2005 + Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania.

CIMACT Civil-Military ATM/ Air defence Coordination Tool

CNS Communications, Navigation, Surveillance.

CO2 Carbon dioxide

Composite flight hour

En-route flight hours plus IFR airport movements weighted by a factor that reflected the relative importance of terminal and en-route costs in the cost base (see ACE reports)

COP15 15th Conference of the Parties, Copenhagen 2009

CRCO EUROCONTROL Central Route Charges Office

Croatia Control Hrvatska kontrola zračne plovidbe d.o.o. ANS Provider - Croatia,

CTOT Calculated Take-Off Time

DCAC Cyprus Department of Civil Aviation of Cyprus. ANS Provider - Cyprus.

DFS DFS Deutsche Flugsicherung GmbH, ANS Provider - Germany

DHMi Devlet Hava Meydanlari Isletmesi Genel Müdürlügü (DHMi),

General Directorate of State Airports Authority, Turkey. ANS Provider – Turkey.

DMEAN Dynamic Management of the European Airspace Network

DSNA Direction des Services de la Navigation Aérienne. ANS Provider - France

EAD European AIS Database

EANS Estonian Air Navigation Services. ANS Provider – Estonia.

EATM European Air Traffic Management (EUROCONTROL)

EC European Commission

ECAA

European Common Aviation Area. This is a multilateral agreement signed in December 2005 by the European Community and 9 partners (Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Iceland, Montenegro, Norway, Serbia, United Nations Mission in Kosovo). The ECAA commits the signatories to continue harmonising with EU legislation. More details are available on the EC website: http://ec.europa.eu/transport/air_portal/international/doc/com_2006_0113_en.pdf

ECAC European Civil Aviation Conference.

ECCAIRS European accident and incident database

EDCT Estimate Departure Clearance Time

EEA European Economic Area (EU Member States + Iceland, Norway and Lichtenstein)

EEC EUROCONTROL Experimental Centre, Brétigny

Effective capacity The traffic level that can be handled with optimum delay (cf. PRR 5 Annex 6)

ELFAA European Low Fares Airline Association (http://www.elfaa.com)

ENAV Ente Nazionale di Assistenza al Volo (ENAV). ANS Provider - Italy

ERA European Regional Airlines Association (http://www.eraa.org)

ESARR

ESARR 1

ESARR 2

ESARR 3

ESARR 4

ESARR 5

ESARR 6

EUROCONTROL Safety Regulatory Requirement

“Safety Oversight in ATM”

“Reporting and Analysis of Safety Occurrences in ATM”

“Use of Safety Management Systems by ATM Service Providers”

“Risk Assessment and Mitigation in ATM”

“Safety Regulatory Requirement for ATM Services' Personnel”

“Safety Regulatory Requirement for Software in ATM Systems”

ESIMS ESARR Support Implementation & Monitoring Programme

ESRA (2002) European Statistical Reference Area (see STATFOR Reports)

Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canary Islands, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic,

136

Denmark, Finland, France, FYROM, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Lisbon FIR, Luxembourg, Malta, Moldova, Netherlands, Norway, Romania, Santa Maria FIR, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, United Kingdom

ESRA 2008 As above plus Albania, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Poland, Serbia, Montenegro, Ukraine

ETS Emissions Trading Scheme. The objective of the EU ETS is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in a cost-effective way and contribute to meeting the EU’s Kyoto Protocol targets.

EU European Union [Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany , Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, United Kingdom]

EUROCONTROL The European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation. It comprises Member States and the Agency.

EUROCONTROL Member States

Thirty-eight Member States (31.12.2009): Albania, Armenia, Austria, Belgium, Bosnia & Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Moldova, Monaco, Montenegro, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia; Turkey, Ukraine and United Kingdom.

EUROCONTROL Route Charges System

1988 (11 States): Belgium, Luxembourg, Germany, France, United Kingdom, Netherlands, Ireland, Switzerland, Portugal, Austria, Spain.

1997 (23 States): idem + Greece, Turkey, Malta, Cyprus, Hungary, Norway, Denmark, Slovenia, Czech Republic, Sweden, Italy, Slovak Republic.

2000 (28 States): idem + Romania, Croatia, Bulgaria, Monaco, FYROM.

2001 (29 States): idem + Moldova.

2002 (30 States): idem + Finland.

2003 (31 States): idem + Albania

2004 (31 States): idem

2005 (32 States): idem + Bosnia & Herzegovina

2006 (32 States): idem.

2007 (32 States) idem

2008 (36 States) idem + Serbia, Montenegro, Poland and Lithuania

2009 (37 States) ) idem + Armenia

EUROSTAT The Statistical Office of the European Community

EVAIR EUROCONTROL Voluntary ATM Incident Reporting system

FAB Functional Airspace Blocks

FINAVIA ANS provider – Finland

FIR Flight Information Region. An airspace of defined dimensions within which flight information service and alerting service are provided.

FL Flight Level. Altitude above sea level in 100 feet units measured according to a standard atmosphere. Strictly speaking a flight level is an indication of pressure, not of altitude. Only above the transition level (which depends on the local QNH but is typically 4000 feet above sea level) flight levels are used to indicate altitude, below the transition level feet are used.

FMP Flow Management Position

FUA

Level 1

Level 2

Level 3

Flexible Use of Airspace

Strategic Airspace Management

Pre-tactical Airspace Management

Tactical Airspace Management

FYROM Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia

137

FYROM CAA Civil Aviation Authority of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. ANS Provider – FYROM.

GAT General Air Traffic. Encompasses all flights conducted in accordance with the rules and procedures of ICAO.

PRR 2009 uses the same classification of GAT IFR traffic as STATFOR:

1. Business aviation: All IFR movements by aircraft types in the list of business aircraft types (see STATFOR Business Aviation Report, May 2006, for the list);

2. Military IFR: ICAO Flight type= 'M', plus all flights by operators or aircraft types for which 70%+ of 2003 flights were 'M';

3. Cargo: All movements by operators with fleets consisting of 65% or more all-freight airframes ;

4. Low-cost: See STATFOR Document 150 for list.

5. Traditional Scheduled : ICAO Flight Type = 'S', e.g. flag carriers.

6. Charter: ICAO Flight Type = 'N', e.g. charter plus air taxi not included in (1)

GDP Gross Domestic Product

General Aviation All civil aviation operations other than scheduled air services and non-scheduled air transport operations for remuneration or hire.

GHG Greenhouse gases.

GHGs include CO2 - Carbon dioxide, CH4 – Methane, N2O - Nitrous oxide,PFCs – Perfluorocarbons, HFCs – Hydrofluorocarbons, SF6 - Sulphur hexafluoride.

GIACC ICAO High-level Group International Aviation and Climate Change

HCAA Hellenic Civil Aviation Authority. ANS Provider - Greece

HungaroControl ANS Provider - Hungary

IAA Irish Aviation Authority. ANS Provider - Ireland

IANS EUROCONTROL Institute for Air Navigation Services, Luxembourg

IAS International Accounting Standards

IATA International Air Transport Association (www.iata.org)

ICAO International Civil Aviation Organization

IFR Instrument Flight Rules. Properly equipped aircraft are allowed to fly under bad-weather conditions following instrument flight rules.

ILOAT International Labour Office Administrative Tribunal

IMC Instrument Meteorological Conditions

Incident An occurrence, other than an accident, associated with the operation of an aircraft which affects or could affect the safety of operation.

Incident Category A

(ICAO Doc 4444)

A serious incident: AIRPROX - Risk Of Collision: “The risk classification of an aircraft proximity in which serious risk of collision has existed”.

Incident Category B

(ICAO Doc 4444)

A major incident. AIRPROX - Safety Not Assured: “The risk classification of an aircraft proximity in which the safety of the aircraft may have been compromised”.

Interested parties Government regulatory bodies, Air Navigation Service Providers, Airport authorities, Airspace users, International civil aviation organisations, EUROCONTROL Agency, the advisory bodies to the Permanent Commission, European Commission, representatives of airspace users, airports and staff organisations and other agencies or international organisations which may contribute to the work of the PRC.

JU Joint Undertaking

Just culture The EUROCONTROL definition of “just culture”, also adopted by other European aviation stakeholders, is a culture in which “front line operators or others are not punished for actions, omissions or decisions taken by them that are commensurate with their experience and training, but where gross negligence, wilful violations and destructive acts are not tolerated.”

138

KPA Key Performance Area

KPI Key Performance Indicator

Lagging indicators These measure events that have happened (e.g. safety occurrences), effectiveness of safety improvement activities, outcome of service delivery. These focus on results and characterise historical performance.

LAQ Local Air Quality

LARA Local And sub-Regional Airspace management support system

LCIP Local Convergence and Implementation Plan

Leading indicators Leading indicators give advance information relevant to safety in the future. They are developed through comprehensive analyses of organisations (ANSPs, States) and are designed to help identify whether the actions taken or processes in place are effective in lowering the risk

LGS SJSC Latvijas Gaisa Satiksme (LGS). ANS Provider - Latvia

LHR London Heathrow (UK)

Long haul traffic Traffic flow, for which every airport-to-airport distance is more than 4000km

LP/LD Low power/Low drag

LPS Letové Prevádzkové Služby. ANS Provider - Slovak Republic

LSSIP Local Single Sky ImPlementation

LVNL Luchtverkeersleiding Nederland. ANS Provider - Netherlands

M Million

Maastricht UAC The EUROCONTROL Upper Area Centre (UAC) Maastricht. It provides ATS in the upper airspace of Belgium, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and Northern Germany.

MATS Malta Air Traffic Services Ltd. ANS Provider - Malta

MET Meteorological Services for Air Navigation

MIL Military flights

MIT Miles in Trail

MoldATSA Moldavian Air Traffic Services Authority. ANS Provider - Moldova

MTOW Maximum Take-off Weight

MUAC Maastricht Upper Area Control Centre, EUROCONTROL

MUIC EUROSTAT Monetary Union Index of Consumer Price

NATA Albania National Air Traffic Agency. ANS Provider - Albania

NATO North Atlantic Treaty Organisation

NATO ACCS NATO Air Command and Control System

NATS National Air Traffic Services. ANS Provider - United Kingdom

NAV Portugal Navegação Aérea de Portugal – NAV Portugal, E.P.E.

NAVIAIR Air Navigation Services – Flyvesikringstjenesten. ANS Provider - Denmark

NM Nautical mile (1.852 km)

NMD Network Management and Design

NO2 Nitrogen dioxide

NOx Oxides of Nitrogen

NSA National supervisory Authorities

Occurrence

(Source: ESARR 2)

Accidents, serious incidents and incidents as well as other defects or malfunctioning of an aircraft, its equipment and any element of the Air Navigation System which is used or intended to be used for the purpose or in connection with the operation of an aircraft or with the provision of an air traffic management service or navigational aid to an aircraft.

139

OPS Operational Services

Organisation See “EUROCONTROL”.

Oro Navigacija State Enterprise Oro Navigacija. ANS Provider - Lithuania

Passenger Load factor Revenue passenger-kilometres (RPK) divided by the number of available seat-kilometres (ASK).

PATA Polish Air Traffic Agency. ANS Provider - Poland

PC Provisional Council of EUROCONTROL

Permanent Commission

The governing body of EUROCONTROL. It is responsible for formulating the Organisation’s general policy.

PM10 Particulate Matter, with an aerodynamic diameter of less than 10 micrometers

PRB Performance Review Body

PRC Performance Review Commission

Primary Delay A delay other than reactionary

PRISMIL Pan-European Repository of Information Supporting Civil-Military Performance Measurements.

Productivity Hourly productivity is measured as Flight-hours per ATCO-hour (see ACE reports)

PRR

PRR 2007

PRR 2008

PRR 2009


covering the calendar year 2007



PRU Performance Review Unit

Punctuality On-time performance with respect to published departure and arrival times

R&D Research & Development

RAD Route availability document

Reactionary delay Delay caused by late arrival of aircraft or crew from previous journeys

Revised Convention Revised EUROCONTROL International Convention relating to co-operation for the Safety of Air Navigation of 13 December 1960, as amended, which was opened for signature on 27 June 1997.

ROMATSA Romanian Air Traffic Services Administration. ANS Provider - Romania

RPK Revenue passenger-kilometre (RPK): One fair-paying passenger transported one kilometre.

RPK Revenue Passenger Kilometre

RTA Required Time of Arrival

RTK Utilized (sold) capacity for passengers and cargo expressed in metric tonnes, multiplied by the distance flown.

Runway incursion European definition: Any unauthorised presence on a runway of aircraft, vehicle, person or object where an avoiding action was required to prevent a collision with an aircraft. Source: ESARR 2.

US definition: Any occurrence at an airport involving an aircraft, vehicle, person, or object on the ground, that creates a collision hazard or results in a loss of separation with an aircraft taking-off, intending to take off, landing or intending to land. Source: US (FAA order 8020.11A).

RVSM Reduced Vertical Separation Minima

SAFREP EUROCONTROL Director General’s Safety Reporting Taskforce

SAR Search & Rescue

SARPs Standards and Recommended Practices (ICAO)

Separation minima Separation Minima is the minimum required distance between aircraft. Vertically

140

usually 1000 ft below flight level 290, 2000 ft above flight level 290. Horizontally, depending on the radar, 3 NM or more. In the absence of radar, horizontal separation is achieved through time-separation (e.g. 15 minutes between passing a certain navigation point).

Separation minima infringement

A situation in which prescribed separation minima were not maintained between aircraft.

Serious incident

(ICAO Annex 13)

An incident involving circumstances indicating that an accident nearly occurred.

SES Single European Sky (EU)

http://europa.eu.int/comm/transport/air/single_sky/index_en.htm

SESAR The Single European Sky implementation programme

Severity The severity of an accident is expressed according to:

the level of damage to the aircraft (ICAO Annex 13 identifies four levels: destroyed: substantially destroyed, slightly damaged and no damage);

the type and number of injuries (ICAO Annex 13 identifies three levels of injuries: fatal, serious and minor/none).

PRRs focus on Severity A (Serious Incident) and Severity B (Major Incident).

Skyguide ANS Provider - Switzerland

Slot (ATFM) A take-off time window assigned to an IFR flight for ATFM purposes

Slovenia Control ANS Provider - Slovenia

SMI Separation minima infringement.

SOx Sulphur oxide gases

SRC Safety Regulation Commission

SRU Safety Regulation Unit

STATFOR EUROCONTROL Statistics & Forecasts Service

SUA Special Use Airspace

Summer period May to October inclusive

Taxi- in The time from touch-down to arrival block time.

Taxi- out The time from off-block to take-off, including eventual holding before take-off.

TMA Terminal manoeuvring area

TMS Traffic Management System

UAC Upper Airspace Area Control Centre

UK CAA United Kingdom Civil Aviation Authority

UK NATS United Kingdom National Air Traffic Services

UkSATSE Ukrainian State Air Traffic Service Enterprise. ANS Provider - Ukraine

UNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change

UR Unit Rate

US United States of America

USD US dollar

USOAP ICAO Universal Safety Oversight Audit Programme

VFR Visual Flight Rules

VLJ Very Light Jets

VMC Visual metrological conditions

141

ANNEX XII - REFERENCES

PRC documentation can be consulted and downloaded from the PRC website

http://www.EUROCONTROL.int/prc

1 ECAC Institutional Strategy for Air Traffic Management in Europe, adopted by ECAC Ministers of Transport on 14 February 1997.

2 Regulation (EC) No 1070/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council 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.

3 Regulation (EC) No 549/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down the framework for the creation of the Single European Sky (“Framework Regulation”).

4 Regulation (EC) No 550/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the provision of air navigation services in the Single European Sky (“Service provision Regulation”).

5 Regulation (EC) No 551/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the organisation and use of the airspace in the Single European Sky (“Airspace Regulation”).

6 Regulation (EC) No 552/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the interoperability of the European Air Traffic Management Network (“Interoperability Regulation”).

7 Regulation (EC) 1108/2009 of the of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EC) No 216/2008 in the field of aerodromes, air traffic management and air navigation services and repealing Directive 2006/23/EC.

8 http://ec.europa.eu/transport/air/single_european_sky/ses_2_en.htm.

9 PRC Terms of Reference and Rules of Procedure, last updated 14 November 2007.

10 Evaluation of the Impact of the Single European Sky Initiative on ATM Performance” Performance Review Commission (December 2006)

11 Evaluation of Functional Airspace Block (FAB) Initiatives and their contribution to Performance Improvement, Performance Review Commission, October 2008.

12 Review of local and regional Performance Planning, consultation and management processes Performance Review Commission, (December 2009)

13 PRC Discussion paper on the implementation of the SES II Performance Scheme. Version 1.2 dated 17 December 2009. http://www.eurocontrol.int/prc/public/standard_page/SES_II_Performance_Scheme.html

14 http://www.eurocontrol.int/prc.

15 Complexity Metrics for ANSP Benchmarking Analysis, Report by the ACE Working Group on complexity, 2006, Report commissioned by the PRC, http://www.eurocontrol.int/prc/gallery/content/public/Docs/Complexity_%20report.pdf.

16 U.S./Europe Comparison of ATM-related Operational Performance – An initial harmonised assessment by phase of flight, Report jointly produced by the Performance Review Commission and the Air Traffic Organization Strategy and Performance Business Unit of the FAA.

17 The Propagation of Air Transport Delays in Europe, Joint RWTH Aachen University and EUROCONTROL study in 2009, www.eurocontrol.int/ecoda

18 EUROCONTROL, ATM Strategy for 2000+ (November 1998).

19 EUROCONTROL, IATA, CANSO Flight Efficiency Programme, August 2008.

20 Evaluation of Civil/Military Airspace Utilisation, Report commissioned by the Performance Review Commission, (November 2007).

21 Council Regulation (EEC) No 95/93 of 18 January 1993 on common rules for the allocation of slots at Community airports, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi!celexplus!prod!CELEXnumdoc&numdoc=393R0095&lg=en

22 IATA Worldwide Scheduling Guidelines, 17th Edition (December 2008).

23 ATM Airport Performance (ATMAP) Framework, Report commissioned by the PRC, (December 2009) http://www.eurocontrol.int/prc/gallery/content/public/Docs/ATMAP_Report_December_2009.pdf

24 Challenges of Growth – Summary Report 2008 – Eurocontrol. The study is available at http://www.eurocontrol.int/statfor/public/standard_page/Challenges_to_Growth.html .

142

25 COM (2008) 389 dated 25.6.2008; title: Single European Sky II: towards more sustainable and better performing aviation.

26 Mikhail V Chester and Arpad Horvath 2009, Environmental assessment of passenger transportation should include infrastructure and supply chains, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of California

27 Directive 208/101/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 amending Directive 2003/87/EC so as to include aviation activities in the scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community.

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2009:008:0003:0003:EN:PDF

28 Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2003:275:0032:0046:EN:PDF

29 Challenges of Growth 2008, EUROCONTROL, www.eurocontrol.int/statfor

30 Directive 2008/50/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2008 on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/JOHtml.do?uri=OJ:L:2008:152:SOM:EN:HTML)

31 Directive 2002/30/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 March 2002 on the establishment of rules and procedures with regard to the introduction of noise-related operating restrictions at Community airports http://eur-lex.europa.eu/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi!celexplus!prod!DocNumber&lg=en&type_doc=Directive&an_doc=2002&nu_doc=30

32 Directive 2002/49/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 June 2002 relating to the assessment and management of environmental noise, (OJ L 189, 18.7.2002, p. 12–25)

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32002L0049:EN:NOT

33 Commission Regulation (EC) No 1794/2006 of 6 December 2006 laying down a common charging scheme for air navigation services.

34 CANSO communication, 20 April 2009 www.canso.org/xu/document/cms/streambin.asp?requestid=40E65D37...

35 EUROCONTROL, Report on Aeronautical MET Costs, commissioned by the Performance Review Commission, May 2004. http://www.eurocontrol.int/prc/index.html

36 ATM Cost-Effectiveness (ACE) 2008 Benchmarking Report (May 2010), Report commissioned by the Performance Review Commission.

37 Evaluating the true cost to airlines of one minute of airborne or ground delay (2003) (University of Westminster), Report commissioned by the Performance Review Commission.

Background

This report has been produced by the Performance Review Commission (PRC). The PRC was established by the Permanent Commission of EUROCONTROL in accordance with the ECAC Institutional Strategy 1997. One objective of this strategy is “to introduce a strong, transparent and independent performance review and target setting system to facilitate more effective management of the European ATM system, encourage mutual accountability for system performance…”

All PRC publications are available from the website: http://www.eurocontrol.int/prc

Notice

The PRC has made every effort to ensure that the information and analysis contained in this document are as accurate and complete as possible. Only information from quoted sources has been used and information relating to named parties has been checked with the parties concerned. Despite these precautions, should you find any errors or inconsistencies we would be grateful if you could please bring them to the PRU’s attention.

The PRU’s e-mail address is [email protected]

Copyright notice and Disclaimer

© European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation (EUROCONTROL)

This document is published by the Performance Review Commission in the interest of the exchange of information.

It may be copied in whole or in part providing that the copyright notice and disclaimer are included. The information contained in this document may not be modified without prior written permission from the Performance Review Commission.

The views expressed herein do not necessarily reflect the official views or policy of EUROCONTROL, which makes no warranty, either implied or express, for the information contained in this document, neither does it assume any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of this information.

Printed by EUROCONTROL, 96, rue de la Fusée, B-1130 Brussels, Belgium. The PRC’s website address is http://www.eurocontrol.int/prc. The PRU’s e-mail address is [email protected].

About the Performance Review Commission

The Performance Review Commission (PRC) provides independent advice on European Air Traffic Management (ATM) Performance to the EUROCONTROL Commission through the Provisional Council.

The PRC was established in 1998, following the adoption of the European Civil Aviation Conference (ECAC) Institutional Strategy the previous year. A key feature of this Strategy is that “an independent Performance Review System covering all aspects of ATM in the ECAC area will be established to put greater emphasis on performance and improved cost-effectiveness, in response to objectives set at a political level”.

The PRC reviews the performance of the European ATM System under various Key Performance Areas. It proposes performance targets, assesses to what extent agreed targets and high-level objectives are met and seeks to ensure that they are achieved. The PRC/PRU ana-lyses and benchmarks the cost-effectiveness and productivity of Air Navigation Service Providers in its annual ATM cost-effectiveness (ACE) Benchmarking reports. It also produces ad hoc reports on specific subjects.

Through its reports, the PRC seeks to assist stakeholders in understanding from a global perspective why, where, when, and possibly how, ATM performance should be improved, in knowing which areas deserve special attention, and in learning from past successes and mistakes. The spirit of these reports is neither to praise nor to criticise, but to help everyone involved in effectively improving perfor-mance in the future.

The PRC holds 5 plenary meetings a year, in addition to taskforce and ad hoc meetings. The PRC also holds consultation meetings with stakeholders on specific subjects.

The PRC consists of 12 Members, including the Chairman and Vice-Chairman:

Mr. John Arscott Chairman Mr. Fritz Feitl Vice-ChairmanMr. Ralf Berghof Dr Ricardo GenovaMr. Carlo Bernasconi Mr Mustafa KilicMr Hannes Bjurstrom Mr Keld LudvigsenMr. Jean-Yves Delhaye Mr. Jaime ValadaresMr. Dragan Draganov Mr Jan Van Doorn

PRC Members must have senior professional experience of air traffic management (planning, technical, operational or economic as-pects) and/or safety or economic regulation in one or more of the following areas: government regulatory bodies, air navigation ser-vices, airports, aircraft operations, military, research and development.

Once appointed, PRC Members must act completely independently of States, national and international organisations.

The Performance Review Unit (PRU) supports the PRC and operates administratively under, but independently of, the EUROCONTROL Agen-cy. The PRU’s e-mail address is [email protected].

The PRC can be contacted via the PRU or through its website http://www.eurocontrol.int/prc.

PRC PROCESSES

The PRC reviews ATM performance issues on its own initiative, at the request of the deliberating bodies of EUROCONTROL or of third parties. As already stated, it produces annual Performance Review Reports, ACE reports and ad hoc reports.

The PRC gathers relevant information, consults concerned parties, draws conclusions, and submits its reports and recommendations for deci-sion to the Permanent Commission, through the Provisional Council. PRC publications can be found at www.eurocontrol.int/prc where copies can also be ordered.

EUROCONTROL

PRR_2009 428x297.indd 2 19/05/10 16:58

EUROCONTROLEUROCONTROL

PRR 2009


An Assessment of Air Traffic Management in Europe during the Calendar Year 2009

Performance Review Commission I May 2010

For any further information please contact:

Performance Review Unit, 96 Rue de la Fusée,B-1130 Brussels, Belgium

Tel: +32 2 729 3956Fax: +32 2 729 9108

[email protected]://www.eurocontrol.int/prc

PR

R 2009 - M

ay 2010P

erform

ance R

eview R

epo

rt

PRR_2009 428x297.indd 1 19/05/10 16:58

Performance Review Report

Documents

Transcript of Performance Review Report